RE: How many Doms were subs first?

RE: How many Doms were subs first? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

Celeste43 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/14/2007 6:54:48 PM)
Some start as subs and then change, others don't. But I don't think that one's level of masochism or sadism has anything to do with dominance or submission. There are sadists who are dominant, there are sadists who aren't, they have no interest in control, just in pain play. There are dominants who have zero interest in dishing out pain, there are dominants who enjoy receiving pain given in exactly the intensity and manner that they enjoy. Having someone hit you won't teach you to enjoy pain if you aren't wired for it nor will it teach you to be happy making someone else happy.

LadyPact -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/14/2007 7:13:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MstrssPassion I personally don't think a dom can ever be a sub however I think a dom could bottom as to whether they actually benefit from going through this experience... everyone is different & there is no right answer or wrong answer This goes with what I was thinking most. If I would have had to start out in the lifestyle from 'the bottom up' I probably wouldn't be in it today. I came in as a Dominant, learned to be a Dominant, and presently, I am a Dominant. At the same time, I can also bottom, if I chose (which isn't often) and I get to see things from the other side. The difference being, I can do it, but it doesn't necessarily fulfill Me.

jthaddeus -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/14/2007 10:07:53 PM)
Thank you all for sharing your expereince with me. I honestly thought the responses would primarily be different, and this is giving me something great to think about. I'm still not sure how it does or does not affect me personally, but at very least in my understanding of the human entity, it is amazingly educational. Thank you again :) - j.

Focus50 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/15/2007 3:19:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit People who say "Doms cant submit or its all orientation or hard wiring" seem to view the concepts of dominance and submission in the scope of purely kinky sexuality and intimacy. And I hafta conclude the exact opposite of this statement. To me, those Doms (or subs) who are comfortable with switching roles for the experience or whatever literally are playing a role; play-acting even! I don't switch because I'm not wired to; it fulfills NO need or desire - and for exactly the same reason I (hetero) don't dabble in gay experiences. My BDSM is about my personal relationship dynamics, which is a far greater spectrum than merely kink or sexuality. Being a non-switching Dominant is what drives me to seek out a submissive partner, just as being a hetero male drives me toward (preferably) hetero females - tain't rocket science and it certainly isn't mere kink. IMO, the concept of a Dom subbing first is about shallow kink and dress-up etc and I find it rather offensive to have one's primal relationship need (hard-wiring) and dynamic dismissed so flippantly. I think your real confusion comes from your first post here. Your profile says Dominant but that post suggests otherwise. I would agree a switch can sub first - but they're hard-wired differently again.... Focus.

MadRabbit -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/15/2007 5:01:48 AM)
Edited for Clarification. My profile says Dominant because that is where my innate desires lie. I agree with you that if we view dominance and submission in the context of intimate relationships, then it can be classified as orientation. I wasnt dismisisng that. I simply miscommunicated and have been trying to clarify it in later posts. However...there is many contexts in life where we submit and dominate. If we extend the scope from intimate relationships and look at the activities in all our lives and society, then its nearly impossible to classify someone as solely dominant or submissive. The point I was trying to make that many Dominants and Masters spent time as "subs" in contexts other than intimate, sexual relationships. The service I would hope to have one day wouldnt be very different then a job as a server, housekeeper, secertary or lowly employee at a corporation. All these jobs have protocols and rules the employees are expected to follow, provide service for other people, and follow orders. Archer provided an example of this. Does this mean that I will find fullfillment in it? Does this mean I will have my desires satisfied? Does this mean I will enjoy it? Nope, but we do thinks in life we have no desire for or fullfillment for all the time. People submit and dominante all time out of desires that arent innate sexual orientation. Soldiers serve their country and submit to the authority of their commanders out of duty, I submit to the authority of a corporation for money, people submit to the authority of the law to avoid jail time. Just because one does any number of these things doesnt mean that they dont have the "hard wiring" or innate desire that we use to classify people as Dominants or Submissives here.

Focus50 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/15/2007 11:51:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit My profile says Dominant because that is where my innate desires lie. I agree with you that if we view dominance and submission in the context of intimate relationships, then it can be classified as orientation. I wasnt dismisisng that. I simply miscommunicated and have been trying to clarify it in later posts. However...there is many contexts in life where we submit and dominate. If we extend the scope from intimate relationships and look at the activities in all our lives and society, then its nearly impossible to classify someone as solely dominant or submissive. The point I was trying to make that many Dominants and Masters spent time as "subs" in contexts other than intimate, sexual relationships. The service I would hope to have one day wouldnt be very different then a job as a server, housekeeper, secertary or lowly employee at a corporation. All these jobs have protocols and rules the employees are expected to follow, provide service for other people, and follow orders. Archer provided an example of this. Does this mean that I will find fullfillment in it? Does this mean I will have my desires satisfied? Does this mean I will enjoy it? Nope, but we do thinks in life we have no desire for or fullfillment for all the time. People submit and dominante all time out of desires that arent innate sexual orientation. Soldiers serve their country and submit to the authority of their commanders out of duty, I submit to the authority of a corporation for money, people submit to the authority of the law to avoid jail time. Just because one does any number of these things doesnt mean that they dont have the "hard wiring" or innate desire that we use to classify people as Dominants or Submissives here. Surely understanding dominance and submission in the context of an alternative lifestyle and as fulfilling individual primal and/or sexual needs is a whole lot simpler when you don't confuse it with what one does to pay the bills and generally survive, no? This is a lifestyle site, NOT a career site. Possible prejudices aside, does a homosexual's job need to reflect the dynamic of his/her sexuality and relationships? Can't it just be a job - for paying the bills etc? Much mighty DOMINANT that I obviously am, I don't own the company where I work nor am I even the manager! <gasp> But my Dom hard-wiring still plays a role because it IS who I am. The boss man tells me what order he wants particular jobs done but he does not presume to tell me how to do them. And when we do have a difference of opinion, rest assured I'm not one to just stand there all head-bowed and dumb-struck "taking my medicine" just because he's tha boss. In the outside world, being a Dom tends to manifest itself slightly differently to my relationships in that I will NOT be dominated, disrespected or talked down to in general. If that means "creating a scene", even one that may cause embarrassment or violence, so be it.... But within my relationships, I do run the show, make the rules etc, because that IS my need and desire. Logically, I can even choose to submit, too - it just won't be happening because it's not hard-wired into me. Focus.

MadRabbit -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/16/2007 1:44:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit My profile says Dominant because that is where my innate desires lie. I agree with you that if we view dominance and submission in the context of intimate relationships, then it can be classified as orientation. I wasnt dismisisng that. I simply miscommunicated and have been trying to clarify it in later posts. However...there is many contexts in life where we submit and dominate. If we extend the scope from intimate relationships and look at the activities in all our lives and society, then its nearly impossible to classify someone as solely dominant or submissive. The point I was trying to make that many Dominants and Masters spent time as "subs" in contexts other than intimate, sexual relationships. The service I would hope to have one day wouldnt be very different then a job as a server, housekeeper, secertary or lowly employee at a corporation. All these jobs have protocols and rules the employees are expected to follow, provide service for other people, and follow orders. Archer provided an example of this. Does this mean that I will find fullfillment in it? Does this mean I will have my desires satisfied? Does this mean I will enjoy it? Nope, but we do thinks in life we have no desire for or fullfillment for all the time. People submit and dominante all time out of desires that arent innate sexual orientation. Soldiers serve their country and submit to the authority of their commanders out of duty, I submit to the authority of a corporation for money, people submit to the authority of the law to avoid jail time. Just because one does any number of these things doesnt mean that they dont have the "hard wiring" or innate desire that we use to classify people as Dominants or Submissives here. Surely understanding dominance and submission in the context of an alternative lifestyle and as fulfilling individual primal and/or sexual needs is a whole lot simpler when you don't confuse it with what one does to pay the bills and generally survive, no? This is a lifestyle site, NOT a career site. Possible prejudices aside, does a homosexual's job need to reflect the dynamic of his/her sexuality and relationships? Can't it just be a job - for paying the bills etc? Your assuming I talking specifically about this. Its a lifestyle site and the relationships in this lifestyle dont solely revolve around intimacy and service. Many people who label themselves as submissives or slave have relationships that would be identical to a housekeeping job except for lack of pay. quote: Much mighty DOMINANT that I obviously am, I don't own the company where I work nor am I even the manager! <gasp> But my Dom hard-wiring still plays a role because it IS who I am. The boss man tells me what order he wants particular jobs done but he does not presume to tell me how to do them. And when we do have a difference of opinion, rest assured I'm not one to just stand there all head-bowed and dumb-struck "taking my medicine" just because he's tha boss. Well...thats kind of a negative stereotype that people who submit are all head bowed and dumb struck and "take your medicine". Surely, though your big bad dominance would be tempered by a line that you dont cross because it would result in you losing your job. Now...if you are Dominant and you can manage to work under the authority of a boss without losing your job out of a "need" for money...without being "less" Dominant. Then why cant someone who is Dominant...submit in the context of a M/S or D/S relationship for a brief period of time...out of a "need or want" for experience or learning? Keep in mind this "submission" will have very little to do with intimacy, sex, or being "dumbstruck or head bowed" all the time. How do you retain your Dominant status when doing something out of a "need" for money but a Dominant who does something out of a "need" for experience or learning is somehow less Domly or not Dominant or hard wired differently then you or confused about who they are or clearly "gasp" a Switch? quote: In the outside world, being a Dom tends to manifest itself slightly differently to my relationships in that I will NOT be dominated, disrespected or talked down to in general. If that means "creating a scene", even one that may cause embarrassment or violence, so be it.... Well...since your confusing dominance with indignation, I can see where this line of thinking is coming from. Many dominants go threw life without creating scenes or getting violent simply because their ego got offended... Many Dominants and Masters have spent time in the military. Are they really Switches or not hard wired as Dominants because they developed the discipline and self control not to explode into violence or an embaressing scene when disrespected and talked down to by their drill instructions? Essentially...it seems what your saying is your Dominant and everyone who is different than you is not really Dominant. quote: But within my relationships, I do run the show, make the rules etc, because that IS my need and desire. Logically, I can even choose to submit, too - it just won't be happening because it's not hard-wired into me. Focus. Agreed! And choosing to serve as a learning experience doesnt do anything to my need or desire to run the show in an intimate relationship...no more than being able to work under a boss out of a need for money affects my Dominant identity. I will also agree wholeheartedly that you cant submit in the context of such a setting, because your ego and stubborn indignation you have described here certainly wont allow it. Some people are able to get past that.

Focus50 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/16/2007 6:58:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Surely understanding dominance and submission in the context of an alternative lifestyle and as fulfilling individual primal and/or sexual needs is a whole lot simpler when you don't confuse it with what one does to pay the bills and generally survive, no? This is a lifestyle site, NOT a career site. Possible prejudices aside, does a homosexual's job need to reflect the dynamic of his/her sexuality and relationships? Can't it just be a job - for paying the bills etc? Your assuming I talking specifically about this. Its a lifestyle site and the relationships in this lifestyle dont solely revolve around intimacy and service. Many people who label themselves as submissives or slave have relationships that would be identical to a housekeeping job except for lack of pay. Right; it's still about individual need and choices - which isn't necessarily the case with one's job. quote: Much mighty DOMINANT that I obviously am, I don't own the company where I work nor am I even the manager! <gasp> But my Dom hard-wiring still plays a role because it IS who I am. The boss man tells me what order he wants particular jobs done but he does not presume to tell me how to do them. And when we do have a difference of opinion, rest assured I'm not one to just stand there all head-bowed and dumb-struck "taking my medicine" just because he's tha boss. quote: Well...thats kind of a negative stereotype that people who submit are all head bowed and dumb struck and "take your medicine". No, it's merely sarcasm about myself and that I do NOT dominate any and all outside of my personal relationships. quote: Surely, though your big bad dominance would be tempered by a line that you dont cross because it would result in you losing your job. Fear of losing my job is never an issue, it doesn't control me, but yes, there is still a line there - that I'm not an ill-mannered, boorish arsehole. quote: Now...if you are Dominant and you can manage to work under the authority of a boss without losing your job out of a "need" for money...without being "less" Dominant. Then why cant someone who is Dominant...submit in the context of a M/S or D/S relationship for a brief period of time...out of a "need or want" for experience or learning? Keep in mind this "submission" will have very little to do with intimacy, sex, or being "dumbstruck or head bowed" all the time. How do you retain your Dominant status when doing something out of a "need" for money but a Dominant who does something out of a "need" for experience or learning is somehow less Domly or not Dominant or hard wired differently then you or confused about who they are or clearly "gasp" a Switch? Because a job is still just a means for surviving. I think your excuse of a Dom "needing" to submit for "experience or learning" is a crock. You're entitled to describe yourself however you want but no matter how you wanna dress it up or explain it away, a dom with a need to submit is a switch at best - and that's the issue you should address rather than casting dispersions on every other Dom who does NOT "need" to submit or "get past" whatever! C'mon - exactly what is it you think you're gonna learn or experience through submitting to someone - to be a better Dom? pfft Is it possible I could be a "better" hetero if I'd sought out a gay experience, for eg? Cross-dressing would make me more appreciative of being a man? Certainly a few days in Iraq or Somalia would make me appreciate life in Oz - granted. But it just ain't a need, either. lol quote: In the outside world, being a Dom tends to manifest itself slightly differently to my relationships in that I will NOT be dominated, disrespected or talked down to in general. If that means "creating a scene", even one that may cause embarrassment or violence, so be it.... quote: Well...since your confusing dominance with indignation, I can see where this line of thinking is coming from. Many dominants go threw life without creating scenes or getting violent simply because their ego got offended... Many Dominants and Masters have spent time in the military. Are they really Switches or not hard wired as Dominants because they developed the discipline and self control not to explode into violence or an embaressing scene when disrespected and talked down to by their drill instructions? This is just getting silly! Generally the only people who get pushed around are those who enable it - ask any bully. In my 53yrs, I've actually been involved in very few scenes or violence etc, simply because I won't back down from its possibility. No bruised ego necessary.... And I wouldn't know about the military - I can respect authority etc but I suck at taking orders; military was definitely not an option for me. quote: Essentially...it seems what your saying is your Dominant and everyone who is different than you is not really Dominant. Wrong again - I'm saying a Dom with a need to submit is not a Dominant - still ain't rocket science.... quote: But within my relationships, I do run the show, make the rules etc, because that IS my need and desire. Logically, I can even choose to submit, too - it just won't be happening because it's not hard-wired into me. quote: Agreed! And choosing to serve as a learning experience doesnt do anything to my need or desire to run the show in an intimate relationship...no more than being able to work under a boss out of a need for money affects my Dominant identity. I will also agree wholeheartedly that you cant submit in the context of such a setting, because your ego and stubborn indignation you have described here certainly wont allow it. Some people are able to get past that. Thing is I'm 53 (almost), NOT 23! I figured out my needs and sexuality years ago and actually don't need to "get past" anything - very comfortable in my own skin, thankya muchly. I can't help thinking you're clinging to the tag of "Dominant" because of an immature belief that it's a status symbol; top of the BDSM food chain etc, when the truth is a Dom is only boss of his own relationship. Be a Dom with a need to submit by all means, it IS your right. What a potential sub in your life makes of that is entirely up to her - don't envy her situation though.... And I actually admire that you're convinced all other non-submitting Dom/mes are the ones confused and out of step with reality etc, rather than just you. wink Focus.

JerryInTampa -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/16/2007 7:07:21 PM)
quote: People who say "Doms cant submit or its all orientation or hard wiring" seem to view the concepts of dominance and submission in the scope of purely kinky sexuality and intimacy. The two statements you're responding to are different and your conclusion is not neccessairily vaild. Of course I'm capable of sumbission. I submit to some degree or another to my boss, the IRS, my parents, etc. I've never taken the Sub role in a romantic relationship. I get no enjoyment from being submissive. I do enjoy dominating. I tend towards dominant positions / positions of power in my work life, and recreational life. It is hard-wiring for me to see a place at the top of the totem pole. So "it's hardwarired" is not exclusive of "can submit". The issue isn't whether I can, but whether I enjoy the act. I don't. I can enjoy the results (not getting fired), and I can appriciate the neccessity, but I don't find satisfaction or pleasure in the submission. To answer the OP for myself: No, I was not a submissive first. I've no desire to.

MzMia -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/16/2007 8:38:13 PM)
Gotta agree with Focus on this.... I never have felt you needed to submit for the experience of learning. Great post Focus.

Archer -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/16/2007 11:23:29 PM)
Clarification obviously needed on the idea of "Need" to submit to learn something. The idea that seems to be skipped over is this is generally a matter of "tuition". Someone has knowledge you seek you trade service for information. A simple barter transaction. Having nothing to do with orientation other than swallowing pride enough to pay the tuition. Same way you trade off your submission to your boss for a paycheck. The more senior or experienced Dominant has information you need or want, maybe a term of service is worth that information to you maybe it isn't. What that says about you in either case is a matter for you to honestly evaluate on your own terms trying to evaluate what it means in someone else is the height of One True Wayism.

Focus50 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/17/2007 5:07:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Clarification obviously needed on the idea of "Need" to submit to learn something. The idea that seems to be skipped over is this is generally a matter of "tuition". Someone has knowledge you seek you trade service for information. A simple barter transaction. Having nothing to do with orientation other than swallowing pride enough to pay the tuition. Same way you trade off your submission to your boss for a paycheck. The more senior or experienced Dominant has information you need or want, maybe a term of service is worth that information to you maybe it isn't. What that says about you in either case is a matter for you to honestly evaluate on your own terms trying to evaluate what it means in someone else is the height of One True Wayism. Archer, what you're not entirely grasping is that for many of us, "swallowing pride" or "trade(ing) service for information" is just too high a price for ANY information. I'd likely trade my personal service to save a loved one's life but for experience or knowledge??? Not a chance! No matter how you or MR wanta rationalise it, submitting to the will and whim of dominant other is nothing like working for the boss to get that pay cheque. You're comparing canoes to ocean liners! At my stage of life, I can think of better things I could be doing rather than going to work 5 days a week but the fact that I still go does NOT involve any swallowing of pride because I still don't submit to anyone. Hell, the manager even knows through experience that if he wants a piece of me, he damned well better be 100% right. Now which self-respecting Dom/me would accept that attitude from a submissive, even one only domestic service orientated? Focus. Damn - tha dredit edit....!

Archer -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/17/2007 11:07:30 PM)
Yeah RightWhatever you say Focus. No telling the closed mind anything is a lesson I learned long ago. The fact this sentance "maybe a term of service is worth that information to you maybe it isn't." somehow eluded your grasp doesn't suprise me though. Thanks though for making the universal judgement that any of us that find the trade off might be worth while to be something less than Dominant. So very Uberdom of you.

Focus50 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/18/2007 4:16:02 AM)
Tut, tut... all this shouting...! Self control is an excellent Dom trait - guess you're not expected to learn that during a period of service.... Errr, surely this isn't some petty grudge from the "References" thread all those months ago - is old news for me.... :-) Focus.

Archer -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/18/2007 4:20:23 AM)
Nope not held over just remembering the form you always seem to drop into and falling into my own responces to it. It wasn;t a shout though just though I'd make it big enough for you to not miss, since the normal font seemed too small for you to see. Face it youmissed the fact that I allowed for your veiw as viable, you however didn't allow for mine. Tollerance I guess is beyond your self taught totally natural uber dominance.

Focus50 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/18/2007 5:02:37 AM)
You're absolutely correct; I DID miss what is apparently a glorious victory for you at my uber expense and humiliation. Worse, I hafta humbly concede I'm still missing it.... lol Is there such a saying as "take whatever victories are on offer", or can I lay claim to it now? Focus.

Archer -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/18/2007 5:17:17 AM)
Archer says "The more senior or experienced Dominant has information you need or want, maybe a term of service is worth that information to you maybe it isn't." I'll leave off the ultra big font this time since you're so sensitive to it. Focus50 says "Archer, what you're not entirely grasping is that for many of us, "swallowing pride" or "trade(ing) service for information" is just too high a price for ANY information." Now lets see I state plainly that maybe it's not worth it to the "universal you" meaning any one specific person and yet you come back with I don't see that it might not be worth it to you?????? Where is the logical disconnect that allows you to not see that you just palin missed it or conciously decided to skip it????????????? The statement makes it perfectly clear that I do get it that some folks will not find it worth the trade for anyone with a elemetary comprehension level of the English language. The difference at hand beyond that is I don't make a judgement of anyone making the choice not to (other than you specificly and thats not based on your choice not to but rather your choice to argue that those of us that did or do choose to pay tuition in this form as something "less than dominant" ), I say specificly "What that says about you in either case (choosing to learn "from the bottom up" or not) is a matter for you (again the universal you non specific) to honestly evaluate on your own terms trying to evaluate what it means in someone else is the height of One True Wayism.

MistressMercia -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/18/2007 5:32:38 AM)
[:)] Well focus i shall agree with you , if your desire is not to be dominanted you wont be. I am very much like that when i was nursing i respected the authority but if i didnt agree with it i wouldnt be a "YES" person for the sake of it either. In my lifestyle now i am a Pro Dom as well as a 24/7 lifestyler, which suits me fine. I have never had the DESIRE to be submissive and have always been dominant, so i am with you Focus its all about your own desires and choices............Mistress

Stephann -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/18/2007 6:08:12 AM)
Does Boot Camp count? I'm only half kidding. Service in the military is a living example of adapting to both dominant and submissive roles. Those who outrank you, are your dominants. Period. Those who are subordinate, are submissive. Period. The paradox, is that those who follow orders best, are promoted fastest and more likely to be assigned positions of authority. Everyone in positions of dominance got there by being good submissives. They stay there, by being good dominants. Since then, I have bottomed for a girlfriend, but I found no fulfillment or enjoyment for it's own sake. I liked that I was doing something she enjoyed, but that was the extent of it; I could just have easily been giving her a massage (something I would enjoy doing for my slave as well.) I do think my experiences in the military gave me a good psychological understanding of D/s mechanics, and have made me a better dominant. I don't think I would recommend a dominant seek out an opportunity to 'bottom' strictly for the educational experience. I would suggest that it never hurts to try the other side of the whip, just to affirm that it simply isn't 'for you.' It seems the current atmosphere highly discourages male dominants from conceding the possibility that they might be switches, because the stigma of being a male switch can brand one as a 'thrill seeker' or only interested in sex. Stephan

onmykneesforhim -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (6/18/2007 6:28:35 AM)
I actaully started as a Domme, its frustrating at best to find someone who relates to your needs. When a sub knows a lot of tricks a Dom would use. It stands to reason it would take someone with more strength and determination than to have one that knows their submissive side. Finding that part of me is terriffing. I think its the same way when you are a sub and then...supprize its not really what you want to begin with. I have also noticed a longer list of people with high stress level jobs, being the manager or boss at work or dangeours jobs are becoming subs. JMO hg

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.1328125