Passive dominance, aggressive submission??

Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

LaTigresse -> Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 8:29:37 AM)
Gooooooood Morning my fine fellow CollarMe addicts! I was just sitting here at my desk (slow day at work) reading through the different threads and found one that made me stop and think. It was a thread asking "...what makes a dominant/master?" It's new and there are only a few responses but it got me thinking about other threads of a similar nature I've seen and some of the answers. Some have said things like, "I've always been dominant, loved tying up the little girls/boys, at a young age" Or, "I've always been one to take the lead!!!" So, being the human being that I am and filtering such things through my own life experiences, I think........"well hell, I never tied anyone up for thrills and I've never been captain of the team........what's the deal with me???". I end up in leadership roles somehow but never really set out to go there. I began thinking back through my own childhood, the things that stick out as indicators in my past. Then I read someone's reply, something about how they like having others do things for them. I thought "YEAH!! That I can relate to!" Then I thought of a reply I made to another thread this morning about first submission. I don't want to fight to make someone submit, I want them to WANT to. So I really started thinking. All of this is pointing to a more passive style of dominance and a more aggressive style of submission. At least initially, and if you think about it, throughout the relationship. At first thought, the terms have a bit of distaste to them in association.........passive dominance and aggressive submissive. Seems like an oxymoron. But is it really? I don't think so. I see alot of posts on the threads that indicate some of the more sucessful M/s relationships would fit to a degree. If being served is inactivity and inactivity is more passive than activity.........AND If serving is an activity and activity is thought of as more aggressive than inactivity...... Okay, so maybe I am stretching things a bit here. But I was just thinking of some of the different facets of dominance and how some of the dominant people I respect most are not really aggressive people at all. Their's is more of a calm quiet leadership. Usually leadership by example and respect earned over time by their consistance. So, then I have to wonder. What are the first indications of this type of dominance? Were they the quiet kids that sat and watched? The bookworms? The ones that prefered their own company over the crowd, and maybe had just a few devoted friends that followed along.........I am wondering now.

Dnomyar -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 8:33:57 AM)
They were the ones who got things done without supervision.

Alumbrado -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 8:36:44 AM)
How about 'pacifist' domination... where it is possible to exchange power and gain control while still maintaning a peaceful and harmonious demeanor?

LaTigresse -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 8:39:50 AM)
That does sound more tollerable than passive domination doesn't it.[:D]

DominantJenny -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 8:44:55 AM)
I always had a bossy streak, but I've never considered myself a leader as such. I was a bookworm and a misfit growing up, and while I don't have much time for reading these days, I'm still a misfit...I don't even fit in with other misfits most of the time. I prefer, generally, to be pursued than to pursue, mostly because I'm terrible at judging interest in me. In a relationship, I just always have a well-informed opinion on every conceivable topic or issue, from the smallest and most mundane to the deepest and most complex. I'm a thinker, a planner, and an organizer by nature, although I do have a surprising spontaneous streak. I have a friend who's very aggressive in his leadership (totally vanilla); he's a good guy and people love him. He goes out of his way to come up with ways to involve people, to encourage interaction, etc. I'm more of a "if you're here, you want to be, and I'll enjoy you while you are. If you go away, I may or may not be sad, but I'll live." kind of person. (Except with my lovers, who I would definitely be extremely sad to lose, particularly my spouse, who I've come to fully need on pretty much every level.) I give (especially advice); I love to be helpful and I'm reliable that way, but I know my boundaries, too. On the other hand, I'm a very aggressive sadist...I'm actually working on acting less and letting myself be acted on (with direction, of course) more. And I was always that way...my earliest sexual fantasies were exclusively S/M.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 8:45:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dnomyar They were the ones who got things done without supervision. Exactly. I am reasonably certain that I didn't set out to become the go-to person everywhere. I was the smartest kid in the room when I was young, and dang, what do you do with the smart kid? Give her responsibilities, keeps her out of the way! Now I can't go into the office without being presented with a list of problems that somehow can't be solved by SOMEONE ELSE. I see a lot of threads that talk about being "inspired to submit". Well, to a large degree I have to be "inspired" to dominate. I am interested in power exchange, not power struggle--since these are choices we are making in our lives, I feel no need to force someone else's choice.

happypervert -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 9:39:30 AM)
Interesting observation, LaT -- I think you're onto something here. I think to clarify the picture, it would help to also define the passive submissive and aggressive dominant. To me, the aggressive dominant type might be someone like Bill Clinton who seems driven to seduce everyone into agreeing with him (and/or dropping their knickers if female). The passive submissive might be sitting back watiing to be seduced. It might also just be a matter of one's nature as defined by being more or less outgoing. Being not so outgoing myself and not particularly persuasive or seductive unless a gal decides she wants to be seduced/dommed by me, then I can definitely relate to what you're saying. *edit typos

Mercnbeth -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 10:06:26 AM)
quote: What are the first indications of this type of dominance? it has been this slave's experience that they were the only wee one in the family. that plus they rolled a really high number when it came to "Charisma".[:)] they learned to amuse themselves at an early age and became comfortable being the only one dominating all the toys in the house. if anyone else came over to play, they played by THEIR rules. they were the sole focus of attention for two adults, make that 6 if the grandparents were involved. it also helps a great deal if their dominance was encouraged and their confidence strengthened by their primary caregivers. the world is, indeed, their oyster. responsibility is thrust on them and them alone. there are no other wee ones to share the chores with. as they get even older, they come into the realization that they will be the only one to be responsible for their parents as they became old and infirmed and will be the only one to dispose of their property once they are gone. many times, they are the "only one" that inherits the family business or estate...they will "have to" be the one to make the decisions and take charge, by default.

Stephann -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 10:34:23 AM)
A person who tends to find themselves in leadership positions tends to do so through inspiration. They behave in a manner that leaves others thinking "wow, she really has her stuff together." I think beth is right; in no small part, a bit of charisma goes a long way. Being good at inspiring leadership doesn't necessarily mean one enjoys it. Many submissives find themselves in positions of authority in their professional and even personal lives; submission for them is an escape from having to hold the reigns, especially in romantic situations. I'd suggest this is best illustrated using a scale; one may really enjoy submitting (a 9 on a 1-10 enjoyment scale) but have very little aptitude for it (maybe a 2 on a skill scale.) Some people are naturally suited for activities they enjoy (dominating, and submitting, both being activities) and some people are pretty terrible at it. I love art in all forms, but I can barely scribble in a stick figure. Drawing and painting just don't come naturally to me, no matter how much I enjoy it. Warm regards, Stephan

kyraofMists -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 10:40:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse I end up in leadership roles somehow but never really set out to go there. That is true for me as well. I am a natural leader and often looked at to take charge of situations. However, it is incredibly draining and I do not enjoy it. I am good at it, but I hate it. quote: passive dominance and aggressive submissive. Seems like an oxymoron. But is it really? I don't think so. I see alot of posts on the threads that indicate some of the more sucessful M/s relationships would fit to a degree. No, it is not an oxymoron. However, we use the terms passive and active instead of aggressive. Our M/s structure is a blend of passive/active dominance and passive/active submission. He requires that we be active in our submission to him and would find it annoying if we had to be instructed to do everything. quote: So, then I have to wonder. What are the first indications of this type of dominance? Were they the quiet kids that sat and watched? The bookworms? The ones that prefered their own company over the crowd, and maybe had just a few devoted friends that followed along.........I am wondering now. That sounds more like an introvert to me. I am not sure that there are specific behaviors that indicate whether someone is submissive or dominant. When I was a child, I was very bossy and I have usually ended up in leadership roles. However, the thought of having the authority within my intimate relationships is abhorrent to me. I would be miserable. So what is a dominant? Are they someone who enjoys having authority within their interactions with others? Or are they someone who others recognize has having the authority within their interactions, even if they do not enjoy that role? Knight's Kyra

MadRabbit -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 10:58:23 AM)
I am generally aggressive in my sex life, but it ends there basically. I follow the basic same kind of style and it's the center of my philosophy. I don't strive to force someone to do anything or "domineer" them into my rule, but rather I "want" them to serve me or not at all. Stephann put it perfectly. I want people to look at me and go "Wow...this guy has his shit together and his head on straight. This is someone who can handle things." I don't tolerate power struggles. I won't ever ask someone to be my slave. It has to be a purely free choice that is brought about their desire to serve me or not at all. I don't view control as something that is a "struggle" but rather something that just "flows" in a peaceful, harmonius Zen kind of way. The "struggle" is fucking hot in the bedroom, but a pain in my ass in the dynamic. As such the last two years hasn't been about learning new toys and kink skills, but rather the philosophical concept of "self-mastery". What do I need to improve on? What are my weak spots? What can I do better? How can I challenge myself? To me, it's the big "secert" behind it all and it has worked. I've changed a lot and people defer to me more. They take me seriously. They come to me for advice. People talk about domination like it's some kind of mental hypnosis or some mental skill that creates inspiration in other people. I see it as rather passive. Submissive people are "looking" for someone to serve and they want to please someone. By striving to be someone you respect and growing more and more towards that ideal, then the issue of "acquiring" one becomes a lot less of an issue.

TreasureKY -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 11:03:02 AM)
A very interesting line of thought and thread, LT. I do understand your dislike for the term "passive" as that brings to mind acquiescent submission. Firm is not a flashy, aggressive or bossy dominant... he is generally very quiet and unassuming... but he's most certainly not acquiescent or submissive. I'd almost define his dominance as "not proactive", but that's not quite right and I don't like defining something by a negative. I think it's why so many dominants say that being dominant is what they are and not specifically something they do. Firm doesn't go out of his way to do or act dominantly... but his dominance is there, nonetheless. On the other hand, my submission is more active in that I make more effort to display it by action... though I wouldn't go so far as to define myself as "aggressive". Don't get me wrong, my submission isn't just what I do, either... but there are more physical manifestations of my submission than there are of Firm's dominance. I do think a lot of what people involved with D/s or M/s enjoy is the display, though. While realistically a lot of us don't see it as practical to make those efforts on a consistent basis... to be actively and aggressively dominant and submissive at all times... there is a lack of hesitance to stir those feelings up by "taking command" or "kneeling" when the desire does arise. It makes our hearts go pitter-patter and gets our motors running and we like it. How many fem subs swoon to the image of a manly hero staking his claim, or male doms' hearts melt at a sight of a female surrendering their will? (Of course, feel free to change about the genders to any configuration that pleases you.) It might, however, lose it's charm if it was an everyday, all the time thing. Sort of like desensitization from over-exposure. When I think about, it makes sense for me. I'm not a masochist and I don't enjoy pain. I do, however, enjoy heavier sensations when they are administered as a display of dominance. Spanking for me isn't really about the physical sensation but more the emotional one of being reminded of my own submission while he is asserting his dominance. It's a display... a stepping up to a more proactive dominance. I daresay I probably wouldn't enjoy being spanked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but knowing that it's a part of my relationship and could happen if it's desired adds an element of excitement. In the same respect, I doubt Firm would want me to crawl around on my knees all the time, but I would imagine him knowing that I will kneel for him gives him some level of pleasure. Those of us who do enjoy reveling in those stirrings will admit to feeling like something is missing when in a vanilla relationship where our partner isn't willing to command or bow. It's also why I think some D/s (or M/s) relationships falter after a while... from a lack of finding that balance between day-to-day normal activities and making the effort to fill our cravings for the display. They either desensitize themselves from over-exposure or their dominance and submission muscles atrophy from lack of use. Sorry for the digression, but it's the sign of a good topic... you made me think and it took on a life of its own. [;)] Essentially, I think for many of us, "normal" life is "passive" dominance and "aggressive" submission... but what makes our relationships special is the freedom to exercise and enjoy how we assert those roles.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 11:14:07 AM)
I think the word "passive" unfairly has a negative connotation. Some people have an aire about them which attracts others to look to them for leadership and direction, and want to do for them. They have a power that others can feel but can't really describe. I know a few people like this, although not many. As has been mentioned, my Master and I also have an active/passive dynamic. He doesn't want me to sit back and wait to be instructed, or to lie there and open up so he can fuck. He wants an active participant in serving him. I know him well, and I actively seek ways of improving situations for him, in pleasing him (sexually and non-sexually), and in stimulating him (sexually and non-sexually). It's the difference in seeing an empty glass and waiting to be be told to fill it and knowing he would want a refill and going ahead and filling it without being told. In such cases, he is passively dominating and I am actively submitting. It's why I tend to chuckle a bit when people say all a submissive has to do is lie there. [;)]

thetammyjo -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 11:24:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse Okay, so maybe I am stretching things a bit here. But I was just thinking of some of the different facets of dominance and how some of the dominant people I respect most are not really aggressive people at all. Their's is more of a calm quiet leadership. Usually leadership by example and respect earned over time by their consistance. So, then I have to wonder. What are the first indications of this type of dominance? Were they the quiet kids that sat and watched? The bookworms? The ones that prefered their own company over the crowd, and maybe had just a few devoted friends that followed along.........I am wondering now. I didn't have to do much to find myself in a leadership position -- frankly it was lead or go solo for my comfort. I just noticed that when I talked, others shut up and listened; when I expressed an opinion, others agreed; etc. Those folks who needed/need to announce "I'm in charge" usually got an odd look from me and not a second notice unless he/she was stupid enough to try and get into my space. Sure some would believe them and follow, others would compete. I'd just be me and I had boys competing to carry my books my junior and senior years of high school. Funny really cause I'd say I felt far less confident, less secure, and less dominant than I have since I fully discovered and embraced my kink. I wonder now how many of those boys and possibly girls I'd have following me now given what I consider positive changes in my self-esteem.

velvetears -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 11:58:44 AM)
In submission the woman has interactions, on both an emotional and mental level with her dominant, as well as actions (doing physical "stuff"), for or with him. Same for the dominant with his submissive. i think throughout this thread many who have posted have very well stated how much of the interaction/action is preference related when in reference to being either passive or aggressive. Hence a dominant can choose to be more passive in his interations with a submissive who understands how he enjoys dominating. Subs who need a more aggressive approach would not be suited towards this dominant, and probably very unhappy serving one. The same would happen if this dominant somehow came upon a "passive submissive", she would surely get on his nerves after a while. You stated: "If being served is inactivity and inactivity is more passive than activity.........AND If serving is an activity and activity is thought of as more aggressive than inactivity...... " i understand that the words "passive vs agressive" might not be the best fit, but i understand the overall intent of your inquiry. The way that being served isn't passive is in the realization that the serving would not be happening at all if it were not the dominants desire to be served, also what and how he is being served is all under his choice and control. The passivity in the submission in serving this way is in the limitations on the service - she has to serve what he wants, how he wants it served, when, etc. The way i look at it is like a dance - i would not want either passive or agressive but someone who used both when it suited the purpose and worked to serve the dynamic the best. i would not want to be one or the other because in doing so i would be negating part of who i am.... the dance is in knowing how to combine the both of them to best serve your dominant. i doubt anyone would want a passive submissive were they bleeding to death and needed someone to take over and make quick, rational decisions for them to save their life. Just as many submissives probably wouldn't prefer to be sick and "forced" to perform or serve by an aggressive dominant.

amayos -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 12:03:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse At first thought, the terms have a bit of distaste to them in association.........passive dominance and aggressive submissive. Seems like an oxymoron. But is it really? I don't think so. I see alot of posts on the threads that indicate some of the more sucessful M/s relationships would fit to a degree. Indeed! All too many. I for one abhor passive dominance. Proactive dominance and impassioned submission is more my preference. Interesting thoughts in this thread, nonetheless!

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 12:14:25 PM)
I see it as passive at first, but more active later. At the start I don’t necessarily try to lead, but it is my nature to learn lots about projects I’m involved in. With time as I learn more about the matter I start to dominate because I have accumulated more knowledge on the subject than most. I am also an intensely people oriented person who can pick up on many behavioral nuances. Part of this is because of my nature of observing what makes individual people work. So if I know more about the project at hand and use people skills, I can’t help but end up leading. It is not a choice for me because it is natural that I try to learn everything about something I’m involved in and, with that, comes the rest. Yep, I’m happy when it finally hits the active stage. The more important the leadership position, the longer it will take to reach the point of active domination.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 12:49:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: What are the first indications of this type of dominance? it has been this slave's experience that they were the only wee one in the family. that plus they rolled a really high number when it came to "Charisma".[:)] they learned to amuse themselves at an early age and became comfortable being the only one dominating all the toys in the house. if anyone else came over to play, they played by THEIR rules. they were the sole focus of attention for two adults, make that 6 if the grandparents were involved. it also helps a great deal if their dominance was encouraged and their confidence strengthened by their primary caregivers. the world is, indeed, their oyster. responsibility is thrust on them and them alone. there are no other wee ones to share the chores with. as they get even older, they come into the realization that they will be the only one to be responsible for their parents as they became old and infirmed and will be the only one to dispose of their property once they are gone. many times, they are the "only one" that inherits the family business or estate...they will "have to" be the one to make the decisions and take charge, by default. Whoa. beth, as usual, is a genius. And evidently was haunting my house forty years ago.... add to what she said the notion that as the daughter of the house you had to be gracious, and serve, and share, and give stuff to folks who didn't have the things that you did.....

Prinsexx -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 2:39:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse. So, then I have to wonder. What are the first indications of this type of dominance? The ones that never move a muscle but have THAT look in their eyes......

NorthernGent -> RE: Passive dominance, aggressive submission?? (5/14/2008 2:56:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse Were they the quiet kids that sat and watched? The bookworms? The ones that prefered their own company over the crowd, and maybe had just a few devoted friends that followed along.........I am wondering now. I wouldn't use quiet or extrovert as a measure of dominance; nor would I suggest that preferring your own company is an indicator. I'd offer that people gravitating toward dancing to your tune is a sign that you have something to which others aspire - such as displaying a sense of purpose in everything you undertake.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2026

Terms of Service

0.03125