RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive?

RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (Full Version)

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

Message

DecadentDesire -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 4:37:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuzeCheri By this I mean a person who is perfectly capable of dealing with life and making decisions, but who just naturally responds to people who take a leadership role. Sure, about 70% of the population. The vast majority of people simply do not want to make decisions, do not want to take the lead, and do not want to be in charge. In fact, to gain a position of "leadership", all one has to do is be dumb enough to be willing to step up and make a decision. Now, if we extend the definition to be "people who get erotic enjoyment from submitting", the percentage drops significantly lower, but they obviously exist. This forum would not exist if they did not.

erieangel -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 5:55:57 AM)
For me, submission comes naturally. I've posted before that I tend to submit in some way with most people in my life. It is a comfort level me as to how much of a leadership role I take. I wasn't abused as a child, but there was a level of dysfunction in the home. Could that be a part of it? I don't know because my older sister and I are polar opposites with her being a type A personality who needs to be in charge at every turn. And in doing so, she tends to walk all over me, no matter how much I fight for control when she is around. Was I born this way? I think so and I wish I had come to some of my recent knowledge about my predispositions sooner in life. But I had always known it subconsciously, hence my history of a stream of failed relationships with very domineering and abusive men.

DesFIP -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 7:00:24 AM)
I don't believe I was born that way. I am a natural introvert meaning I have always preferred to limit my social interactions as I find that tiring. I think my tendencies towards submissiveness came out about age 9 when I was hit with pediatric onset unipolar depression. Basically, all my limited energy went towards struggling to keep going and surviving. There was none left over for being the leader, even if I had wanted a group to be part of that needed a leader. But that doesn't prove that I wasn't naturally pre-disposed towards this. In fact, I have to assume I was because one of my cousins, who also inherited the familial tendency towards mood disorders, didn't become a follower but a leader. Both in business and in his interpersonal relationships. Same circumstances, totally different results. Why would we have become polar opposites as a result of the same stress if it weren't inherent?

leadership527 -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 7:15:46 AM)
In your opinion is there such a thing as a naturally submissive person? Well yes, that would be Carol. The term "natural" is poorly chosen but I understand why people reach for it. It was the first word I used also. I use "default" submissive nowadays as my favorite. Carol's default viewpoint is that of a follower. Do you think that just the right dominant person could bring it out? No I don't. The "right dominant" can get another dominant personality to submit. We see that all the time. But I do not think you could turn a default dominant into a default submissive personality.

IceDemeter -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 12:24:33 PM)
FR ~ There is another perspective from which you could look at the idea of "natural submission", and that is starting with the premise that homo sapiens was originally a pack animal. In a pack, there is always a hierarchy, with the entire pack deferring ("submitting") to the alpha leader. If a new animal tries to join the pack, then there will be a shuffling in the hierarchy. The new animal may have been the alpha in their previous pack and end up near the bottom of the hierarchy in the new one. The animal itself didn't change, but it's authority in the structure did when competing with a different set of animals. Another part of being a pack animal is that the survival of the pack over the survival of the individual comes in to play. All levels of the hierarchy serve the survival of the pack in the way that they are best suited for. This is taken to the extreme of a pack leader killing their own young when their actions and attitude present a potential threat to the pack as a whole. Any threat to the hierarchy is a threat to the pack, so instincts developed for determining the hierarchy whenever meeting a new animal. If you accept that our instincts as a pack animal are still applicable today, then you could say that we each will unconsciously check our standing in the hierarchy with each new person that we meet. We could be alpha to 90% of those who we meet, and yet "submit" to the 10% who we meet and determine are alpha to us, or vice-versa. The base drive in following these instincts is not sexual in nature, it is instead the drive for survival of the pack via survival of the hierarchy. This instinctive drive is reinforced by the emotional response of being more content or happy when one's position in the hierarchy is clear and constant. To me, anyone who recognizes a hierarchy, whether it be in society in general, or in the workplace, or in their personal relationships, would be "naturally" submitting to those who they felt were higher in the hierarchy than they are. They also would be "naturally" dominant to any who they felt were lower in the hierarchy. When looked at in this light, I am a "natural submissive" to my partner and to my bosses at work but am a "natural dominant" to those who I am teaching or those who report to me at work. There is nothing particularly dominant or submissive in my personality when looked at by itself, but a hierarchy will appear whenever there is interaction with others. What parts of the personality (or smell? or hormones? or whatever...) will determine the hierarchy I'll leave for others to figure out...

kalikshama -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 2:54:31 PM)
[sm=goodpost.gif]

coookie -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 3:52:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuzeCheri By this I mean a person who is perfectly capable of dealing with life and making decisions, but who just naturally responds to people who take a leadership role. I believe this to be most people. Our world is made up of people who are followers of leaders hence our entire social structure. There are far more people that are able to follow direction than there are capable leaders.

leadership527 -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 4:14:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: coookie I believe this to be most people. Our world is made up of people who are followers of leaders hence our entire social structure. There are far more people that are able to follow direction than there are capable leaders. This is exactly why I favor the most recent paper I read on this. Rather than taking the standard view of placing submission and dominance on opposite ends of a scale they instead separated them and individually looked at a person's tendency to submit an dominate. They concluded that pretty much all humans are submissive... even the "dominant" ones. Failure to be that way precludes one from participating in the pack and, generally, gets the rest of the pack pissed at you. It is is also decidedly contra-survival. Humans are, hands down, the most dangerous species on the planet and failure to get the "I'm serious" signal is bound to get someone dead fast. Totally aside from that whole "submissive" thing, some people are also able and willing to be dominant... as we all know, a much smaller number although of course we will bicker about who that is exactly. I certainly agree that to say someone is "dominant" or "submissive" without context means little. I think that works here in BDSM-land because the context is assumed -- that of the primary interpersonal relationship. Saying someone is dominant or submissive in the larger, more general sense is fraught with peril. At best, such phrases can be used as broad generalities. It is clearly true that Carol assumes a submissive posture way more frequently than I do. In fact, she assumes that posture enough that I find calling her "default submissive" to make sense. But man there are a billion devils in those details... to whom? what was the command? how much resistance did she have to that command? how much does she know/like/respect/trust the other person? and yes, how dominant was that other person? I would assume that everyone... no matter their personality... feels that it is "natural" to take on the role they do in their primary interpersonal relationship. Well, either that or the relationship is destined to not last long.

catize -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 4:36:08 PM)
I don't consider myself a 'natural' anything! I've worked hard to be a leader at times, creating order out of chaos, saying what needs to be said, and I like the fact that in certain venues, people look to me for guidance. Personally, I can't imagine how anyone would survive if they were submissive all the time. How would they get anything done? How would they manage to get out of their own driveway, let alone through the line at the grocery store? I enjoy submission within the context of my intimate relationships but it isn't always easy. Sometimes while obeying an order I think to myself 'he wants me to do whaaat?' Sometimes I don't wanna submit to his will, but I do because I know I will be happier in the long run.

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 4:52:24 PM)
this is a really fucking interesting idea. this pack mentality idea is opening up whole vistas of possibilities to my mind. i'll be kicking this motherfucker around for a while. thank you for posting it!

littlewonder -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 4:58:31 PM)
quote: Personally, I can't imagine how anyone would survive if they were submissive all the time. How would they get anything done? How would they manage to get out of their own driveway, let alone through the line at the grocery store? I struggle. Really that's the honest, simple answer. I get through the things I have to do everyday only because I force myself. I don't enjoy it. I don't like having to lead at times, to have to do things but I make myself because I know if I don't do it I won't ever get anything done. Some days I completely fail and I don't get anything done. But it's my personality. I can't change that. Sure, I can fake it. I can pretend to be a dominant personality, that I enjoy being in charge but I would be lying.

leadership527 -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 5:27:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize Personally, I can't imagine how anyone would survive if they were submissive all the time. How would they get anything done? How would they manage to get out of their own driveway, let alone through the line at the grocery store? You seem to be equating "submissive" with "passive" which I certainly don't. IN that context, Carol is far, far from "default passive". With her it's as simple as "If someone else tells her to do something she defaults to doing that". That has nothing to do with "getting things done" or "getting out of the driveway". What's that got to do with the line in the grocery store? I'm confused. Honestly, I think a part of Carol's coping strategy was to find strong-ish leaders to hang around who could bail her out of the inevitable jams when Person A said one thing and Person B said another. I think a part of her coping strategy was finding me. Another part was bitching about herself being "too nice" for as long as I've known her. Honestly, don't we all have to cope with our own selves and the pro's and con's of that personality? Why is it any easier in your opinion to be dominant. A fair amount of research -- including longevity studies -- would seem to indicate the exact opposite.

catize -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 6:10:25 PM)
quote: You seem to be equating "submissive" with "passive" which I certainly don't. IN that context, Carol is far, far from "default passive". With her it's as simple as "If someone else tells her to do something she defaults to doing that". That has nothing to do with "getting things done" or "getting out of the driveway". What's that got to do with the line in the grocery store? I'm confused. LOL, go grocery shopping much? If I submitted to everyone in that line, I would let them all go ahead of me and would not get out of the store until closing time. Perhaps I do see 'submissive all the time' as passive for that reason. To me, the key phrase here is all the time. I like your use of the term default submissive. It is descriptive of someone who does not submit when it would be unwise to do so. quote: Why is it any easier in your opinion to be dominant. Not at all sure where you got the idea that I think dominance is easier. My question would be, easier than what? Either side of the coin has its joys and responsibilities and if I have ever said otherwise, please show me where.

leadership527 -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 6:46:01 PM)
LOL, go grocery shopping much? Nowadays, I do more than Carol. If I submitted to everyone in that line, I would let them all go ahead of me and would not get out of the store until closing time. Obviously then you define "submissive" differently than I do. Carol would let someone go ahead if they asked for it but not simply because they were there. Carol would allow someone else to go ahead of she and they arrived at the line roughly at the same time. But she would not get out of line to give her space to someone (unless she had 200 items and the other person had 3) unless that person asked. Perhaps I do see 'submissive all the time' as passive for that reason. To me, the key phrase here is all the time. Nope, I'm with you on the "all the time" part. I just don't get how submission can happen in a vacuum. Two people standing next to each other are just two people standing next to each other. Until one of them asserts, the other cannot submit. Do people demand that you get out of line at the grocery store regularly? I like your use of the term default submissive. It is descriptive of someone who does not submit when it would be unwise to do so. nods Although that's not the difference you and I are discussing. And, even that leaves WAY open the definition of what would be unwise. Carol, in fact, submits in an awful lot of situations that I think are unwise -- some of them very, very unwise. She does not submit in situations where folks like DaddysProp would. I don't think she'd submit in situations that Beth would (of MercnBeth). In other words, I don't think a random guy could get her to blow him. I'm certain that a random person could get in front of at line at the grocery store. When I say "default submissive" what I mean is that unless there is substantial and pressing reason to not submit (which really doesn't happen much in real life since random strangers don't demand blow jobs from her) then she does. Not at all sure where you got the idea that I think dominance is easier. My question would be, easier than what? Either side of the coin has its joys and responsibilities and if I have ever said otherwise, please show me where. I read into your statement foolishly. There is a 3rd option... "balanced"... which would in fact describe most people... that hump in the bell curve and all.

erieangel -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 10:37:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize I don't consider myself a 'natural' anything! I've worked hard to be a leader at times, creating order out of chaos, saying what needs to be said, and I like the fact that in certain venues, people look to me for guidance. Personally, I can't imagine how anyone would survive if they were submissive all the time. How would they get anything done? How would they manage to get out of their own driveway, let alone through the line at the grocery store? I enjoy submission within the context of my intimate relationships but it isn't always easy. Sometimes while obeying an order I think to myself 'he wants me to do whaaat?' Sometimes I don't wanna submit to his will, but I do because I know I will be happier in the long run. I hate being a leader, though I have to fake it on my job. Otherwise I am very submissive, but as I've stated previously, not to everybody. And I do know how to assert myself when the need arises. I know how to fight for what I need and want. That doesn't make me any less submissive--it ensures I'll never again become a door mat.

OwnedFemaleFlesh -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/2/2011 10:55:14 PM)
My idea of a natural submissive is one whose personality is, without forcing or trying, submissive. I've met many people like this, both in and out of the scene. Some people just prefer to let others take the lead. I have a very quiet friend who always befriends loud people, like me, as this way they can do the talking in any new situations. It's quite funny when all her friends get together and we all try to shout each other down! Science has yet to prove that any behaviour is caused by biology, and many scientists disagree with the entire concept. But it isn't really necessary to say whether a person's personality is caused by nature or nurture. Imo, a person is being 'natural' when they follow their personality - however that might be. I am acting naturally when I'm 'being myself'. Whether that self is born, constructed or chosen - we do all have our own personalities, and a natural submissive is one who has a submissive personality, however that came about. owned xxx

ThundersCry -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/3/2011 5:33:43 PM)
DO I believe there are natural submissives? Kinda... There are those that are subserviant buy nature... Rather they were taught that growing up to a point...I have no clue... If they were taught that means then they are not...natural... Such a riddle...

Awareness -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/3/2011 11:30:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuzeCheri In your opinion is there such a thing as a naturally submissive person? Yes. Women.

quasarr -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/4/2011 11:37:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder quote: By this I mean a person who is perfectly capable of dealing with life and making decisions, but who just naturally responds to people who take a leadership role. Somebody who wasn't abused, or didn't have domineering parents or any apparent external reasons, but still just is that way. That pretty much describes me to a T. I wasn't abused, parents weren't domineering. I'm simply a submissive personality. I am capable of running my own life but if I'm confronted with someone who is a leader and takes on a leadership role I'm definitely going to let them take charge...I shouldn't say let...more like they simply do take over because my personality works that way with dominant personalities. Ding. Pretty much hit the nail on the head with this discription. For myself, that is.

Asherscorp1 -> RE: Not a natural submissive, but naturally submissive? (8/5/2011 12:22:08 AM)
Absolutely. I naturally submit and I was never abused or had any other experiences in my life that would obviously "mold" me into submission. I simply thrive and am happiest when I am not the dominant force in my life.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02