submissiveness, could it be genetic?

[Sir Victor]

An excerpt from one of your links in post 26 is pasted below.

When people start talking about alpha males and submissive females in the animal kingdom, as evidence of "natural" D/s, that biology actually *does* exclude a perspective on female Dommes as natural or normal or indeed anything but anomalous.

When I linked to those threads it was just to provide some background. I don't agree with the one line that you quoted and would add to the longer quote as I did in this post from another thread. "There is also usually an Alpha female as I understand it, so there is also a D/s factor within the female group."

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=29811036&postcount=32

 

[YourCaptor]

Yes, it is genetic, as well as psychological and environmental.

Genes are manipulated by environment, psychology is manipulated by genes and environment, and finally humans manipulate environment.

For example

An individual may have a gene considered to be dominants related, however environmental factors prevent the gene from activating. The submissive child has trouble finding its way being seen as submissive and develops a dominant personality. Then the individual undergoes hormone therapy and the dormant gene is activated.

Genetics are not as straight forward a “has it”, and “doesn’t have it”.

Considering that genes mutate its not even as simple as “on” and “off”.

Finally, genetic diversity is key to the proper function of reproduction. So it is not one gene that controls traits perceived as submissive, it is thousands.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Apes congregate in groups, we all know "too many chefs spoil the pot" and it is therefore instinctual for the male members to fight to select the strongest one to lead the group, the Alpha male. The Alpha male then usually gets his pick of the females probably choosing the one that is most attractive to him. This selection is also instinctive, with a preference for young firm females because she has good eggs (newer with fewer genetic imperfections, females do not produce new eggs) which increases the probability of healthy offspring. Human males are known to be competitive and to tend to fight or engage in contests symbolically through games/sports. Some females have been bold enough to admit that it is stimulating or arousing to watch men engage in bar/physical fights . We can't ask the female Apes but there is no doubt it has the same effect and gets them ready for mating with the males. The Alpha male doesn't ask the female for permission and it is probably by design that she has an additional hormonal thrill in submitting to him. Most ladies admit that they like the man they've chosen to take them hard as if he can't hold back. Their instinctual submissiveness makes following the male a natural even pleasurable thing. This is often viewed as romantic passion. A lady with a strong man who she has observed and knows she can trust is then in good hands to be protected and taken care of. Her submission minimizes conflict, and provides for one to have the final say for the family group, the arbiter.

See, in modern western society the definition of alpha has changed somewhat. Wimpy little guys who have wealth and/or power become honorary alpha males and muscle-bound jocks are increasingly being disenfranchised by metrosexual graduates and white-collar workers - more and more of whom are female. Women in the west have long since ditched the traditionalist stereotype of wife, mother and home-maker who lives to serve her man. Girls are consistently outperforming boys by a large margin in UK schools and raising their glass ceilings higher and higher as a result.

I don't believe that genetics stand up against the nurture debate when it comes to D/s. People who are submissive sexually may still be alpha types in other aspects of their lives and vice-versa and many people cite familial role models when it comes to how they choose to interact with sexual partners as adults.

I haven't read over the whole thread so I apologise if I'm repeating somebody else.

 

[JMohegan]

VD, the ape dissertation was not written by me. It was originally posted by "Gallant Man" on 5/15/05, and linked to this thread by Victor in post 26, above.

 

[JMohegan]

When I linked to those threads it was just to provide some background. I don't agree with the one line that you quoted and would add to the longer quote as I did in this post from another thread. "There is also usually an Alpha female as I understand it, so there is also a D/s factor within the female group."

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=29811036&postcount=32

Are the females engaging in sexual activities with each other?

People frequently conflate general social dominance with D/s Dominance. I believe this is a mistake, even when discussing the behavior of 21st century humans without reference to other species, but most assuredly when observing animals and attempting to draw conclusions as to human mating behavior in the modern world.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Are the females engaging in sexual activities with each other?

People frequently conflate general social dominance with D/s Dominance. I believe this is a mistake, even when discussing the behavior of 21st century humans without reference to other species, but most assuredly when observing animals and attempting to draw conclusions as to human mating behavior in the modern world.

forgive me for butting in on this fascinating debate...but isn't dominance, dominance? though i realize it's probably the more commonly accepted view within the lifestyle, i've never understood this division between who you are within a "D/s relationship," and who you are in general. in my view (which again i realize is most likely not the popular one), if your relationship orientation differs from who you are in all other contexts, then that is not what i would consider to be the interactions of an actual Dominant and submissive. to submit or dominate within a relationship, and to actually BE dominant or submissive, are quite different. that is why the natural order "theory" has always made sense to me. it's something you can see, something tangible in the world all around us, and it gives us the comfort of knowing that there's a rhyme and reason to everything. that it's not something as superficial as choices, experimentations and kinks. it's being in tune with our truest, most primal selves and in doing so, being in tune with mother nature, the universe, etc.

 

[00Syd]

Yes, it is genetic, as well as psychological and environmental.

Genes are manipulated by environment, psychology is manipulated by genes and environment, and finally humans manipulate environment.

For example

An individual may have a gene considered to be dominants related, however environmental factors prevent the gene from activating. The submissive child has trouble finding its way being seen as submissive and develops a dominant personality. Then the individual undergoes hormone therapy and the dormant gene is activated.

Genetics are not as straight forward a “has it”, and “doesn’t have it”.

Considering that genes mutate its not even as simple as “on” and “off”.

Finally, genetic diversity is key to the proper function of reproduction. So it is not one gene that controls traits perceived as submissive, it is thousands.

Exactly. That's what I've been trying to say, haha.

 

[twysted73]

Very good question.

I think the ability to appreciate forms of the BDSM culture lie in the psyche of everyone.
But the inclinations to explore, to seek out or to enjoy it may be genetic.
To persue the interest in it would decidedly be a geneticlly appointed one in the style and type of personality transferred to the child and then developed thereafter.

Case in point: Driving cross-country with my two in the back seat. She's 9, he's 8. I hear a slight slapping sound once...then twice. After the second I hear my daughter say "Oooh, that felt good. Do it again."

 

[JMohegan]

forgive me for butting in on this fascinating debate...but isn't dominance, dominance? though i realize it's probably the more commonly accepted view within the lifestyle, i've never understood this division between who you are within a "D/s relationship," and who you are in general. in my view (which again i realize is most likely not the popular one), if your relationship orientation differs from who you are in all other contexts, then that is not what i would consider to be the interactions of an actual Dominant and submissive. to submit or dominate within a relationship, and to actually BE dominant or submissive, are quite different. that is why the natural order "theory" has always made sense to me. it's something you can see, something tangible in the world all around us, and it gives us the comfort of knowing that there's a rhyme and reason to everything. that it's not something as superficial as choices, experimentations and kinks. it's being in tune with our truest, most primal selves and in doing so, being in tune with mother nature, the universe, etc.

Nice to see you again, osg.

dominance = the fact or state of being dominant, i.e., commanding, controlling, or prevailing over others.

D/s Dominance = the fact or state of being dominant in the context of a personal relationship.

No one is dominant in "all other contexts," or in relation to all other people. No one.

 

[intothewoods]

I will absolutely not hesitate to say that most women are excited by displays of male sexual initiative and power, sexually, in the world I move in.

As to why, I think it's because there's a disconnect. The objects of desire are these postfeminist passive pale indie rock boys, and then the minute you capture one, what exactly do you expect? So there's a large dissatisfaction level. We're still getting the message that masculinity should be like this when in fact it's like that - or like nothing.

Nobody bothered to offer any alternatives to being an asshole and a jock as male ideals. They didn't build up the actual "real man" parts of being a real man, just dismantled those with the sham ones.

But it's not feminism that ruined men, it's their own buy-in and the degree to which they buy into a reactionary superficial femininity instead of FIXING it.

Yes, especially the bolded parts!

And similarly, nobody offered many alternatives to women either. Every "ideal" or stereotype has turned out to be impossible - the 50s housewife, the supermom working woman. A woman who doesn't want to have kids isn't even on the map.

This discussion isn't about actual women and men, but about cartoon characters (or sitcom characters). The "countless" women who just want a man to take charge and the manipulative women who say they want a man to take charge but all on their terms have little to do with genetics, and everything to do with popular culture.

Sexuality is fluid and complicated for most people. Based on the women I know, most women sometimes want a man to take charge, and sometimes they want to take charge. Most men are exactly the same way. And sometimes isn't always week to week. It seems that people I know in long term relationships will have months and years where one person is kind of in charge, and then life happens, and there is a shift.

Not to mention the fact that I don't know how accurate it is to say that someone's true nature is this or that when for the most part we're all so over-worked that we're just kind of surviving. I sometimes hear wives I know maligned as being bitchy or manipulative, and husbands maligned as cranky assholes, but every couple I know with kids is under a ton of stress, and doing what they can to make it as a couple -- which means, it's far from pretty.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Nice to see you again, osg.

dominance = the fact or state of being dominant, i.e., commanding, controlling, or prevailing over others.

D/s Dominance = the fact or state of being dominant in the context of a personal relationship.

No one is dominant in "all other contexts," or in relation to all other people. No one.

hi JM. you know of course, that i would not agree with your assessment. but then, it's all a matter of perception. you have defined what dominance is to you...and the difference between dominance and "D/s dominance" (that idea still confuses me, i'll admit)....but you have not said what it is to be "a" Dominant. for instance, a non-dominant person can act dominant, can actively dominate, and can hold dominance over others. just as a non-submissive person can actively submit to others and can even consistently remain in a state of submission to a particular person or within a particular relationship. how? they can simply choose to do so, for whatever reason.

likewise, it is possible for a submissive or dominant person to make the conscious choice and effort to act against their own nature. an example of this could be the submissive-natured mother who forces herself to be an authority figure to her children. or the dominant-natured man who who grits his teeth and complies when an armed robber demands he give up his wallet. does that make them any less who they are, even in those moments? imo, no.

 

[Netzach]

hi JM. you know of course, that i would not agree with your assessment. but then, it's all a matter of perception. you have defined what dominance is to you...and the difference between dominance and "D/s dominance" (that idea still confuses me, i'll admit)....but you have not said what it is to be "a" Dominant. for instance, a non-dominant person can act dominant, can actively dominate, and can hold dominance over others. just as a non-submissive person can actively submit to others and can even consistently remain in a state of submission to a particular person or within a particular relationship. how? they can simply choose to do so, for whatever reason.

likewise, it is possible for a submissive or dominant person to make the conscious choice and effort to act against their own nature. an example of this could be the submissive-natured mother who forces herself to be an authority figure to her children. or the dominant-natured man who who grits his teeth and complies when an armed robber demands he give up his wallet. does that make them any less who they are, even in those moments? imo, no.

I think the answer is somewhere in between. I don't think anybody has a relationship orientation that's completely counter to their nature in every regard and can stay sane. There's a reason I work for myself and live 1500 miles from the power center of my family, clearly. I may not be a CEO but I have set up a life in which I don't answer to anyone as much as I can help it.

However, I don't think it's a strict 1=1=1 all the time. Or else only cops, rentacops, blackwater guys, army, CEO's and senators would be "real Dominants." Because let's face it, that's where the power is.

 

[JMohegan]

hi JM. you know of course, that i would not agree with your assessment. but then, it's all a matter of perception. you have defined what dominance is to you...and the difference between dominance and "D/s dominance" (that idea still confuses me, i'll admit)....but you have not said what it is to be "a" Dominant. for instance, a non-dominant person can act dominant, can actively dominate, and can hold dominance over others. just as a non-submissive person can actively submit to others and can even consistently remain in a state of submission to a particular person or within a particular relationship. how? they can simply choose to do so, for whatever reason.

likewise, it is possible for a submissive or dominant person to make the conscious choice and effort to act against their own nature. an example of this could be the submissive-natured mother who forces herself to be an authority figure to her children. or the dominant-natured man who who grits his teeth and complies when an armed robber demands he give up his wallet. does that make them any less who they are, even in those moments? imo, no.

I defined dominance because you asked: "isn't dominance, dominance?" The definition I gave was Webster's.

Again, from Webster's, "a" dominant = a dominant individual in a social hierarchy, i.e., one who commands, controls, or prevails over others.

Shifting to the capital D noun "Dominant" employed by D/s practitioners, in the absence of a universally recognized authority definitions vary, of course. Mine relates to the Dominant's nature (as an individual), and is: someone who is comfortable, happy, aroused, and satisfied when in control in one or more aspects of a personal relationship.

From observation of others, as well as myself, I note that many Dominants are totally uninterested in commanding or controlling other people in a general social setting. Speaking about myself specifically, it's not that I crave or appreciate being controlled by others, it's just that exerting command or control holds no interest in many settings.

 

[JMohegan]

I think the answer is somewhere in between. I don't think anybody has a relationship orientation that's completely counter to their nature in every regard and can stay sane. There's a reason I work for myself and live 1500 miles from the power center of my family, clearly. I may not be a CEO but I have set up a life in which I don't answer to anyone as much as I can help it.

However, I don't think it's a strict 1=1=1 all the time. Or else only cops, rentacops, blackwater guys, army, CEO's and senators would be "real Dominants." Because let's face it, that's where the power is.

A lot of people chafe when answering to others. I agree that this is a very common trait among Dominants, but I don't think it is unique to Dominants. The distinction I see is between seeking to avoid answering to others on the one hand, and actively seeking situations in which people answer to you on the other. Those are different urges, no?

As an aside, I don't see much autonomy in the army. Obedience to a commanding officer sounds wretched to me.

 

[FurryFury]

forgive me for butting in on this fascinating debate...but isn't dominance, dominance? though i realize it's probably the more commonly accepted view within the lifestyle, i've never understood this division between who you are within a "D/s relationship," and who you are in general. in my view (which again i realize is most likely not the popular one), if your relationship orientation differs from who you are in all other contexts, then that is not what i would consider to be the interactions of an actual Dominant and submissive. to submit or dominate within a relationship, and to actually BE dominant or submissive, are quite different. that is why the natural order "theory" has always made sense to me. it's something you can see, something tangible in the world all around us, and it gives us the comfort of knowing that there's a rhyme and reason to everything. that it's not something as superficial as choices, experimentations and kinks. it's being in tune with our truest, most primal selves and in doing so, being in tune with mother nature, the universe, etc.

In my experiences, very few people are Dominant or submissive 24/7. When they are, I don't tend to like them much. I tend to see such Doms are arrogant and overbearing. I tend to see such subs and social door mats.

In my own life I must be Dominant in almost all aspects to make things work well. It's not a role I enjoy or that I am comfortable with. I seek a balance that makes me feel more secure in a world that insists I take charge.

I think you'll find many people who have jobs that force them to act in roles that do not suit them. Therefore, they often seek a balance and some comfort, in their private, intimate, lives. One that gives them the role they feel they really are inside.

Not everyone is the same, to but say that if people are not always Dominant or always submissive they aren't really Dominant or submissive at all, isn't right, IMO.

 

[BiBunny]

My theory--it's only my theory, and it may not hold water--is that most people in general, male or female, are submissive, or at least prefer submissive roles. I really don't think it has much to do with one's gender. I say this because I really am quite the submissive little people-pleaser myself most of the time, but I can lead most people around by their ears, no problem. Most folks just don't like having control. I think it's in most people's nature to only assume control if nobody else will do it because someone has to run the show, lest there be chaos. I am an example of one of those people. I will actively avoid it as much as possible, but I will step up if everyone else refuses to when something truly needs to be done.

I have met very few dominant people in my life. I have met many people who are unhappy in their leadership positions, but, like me, will step up if they have to in order to keep things from going to hell in a handbasket. I have met many people who claim to be dominant, but even I can lord over them with very little effort. I can probably count on two hands the number of people I knew without question would not bend to me. (I guess there you can get into the question of whether the "natural dominant" is a myth or not, but that's not where I'm going.) These people have been both male and female, which is why I say gender has little to do with it.

I guess, from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense that most people will default to "submissive" most of the time. People are social animals, and if the majority of us are submissive, then it does two things. It cuts down on the amount of crap that goes on within groups, and it prevents that "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" problem.

I could be totally wrong. But my own observations and personal experiences seem to bear this out.

 

[Xelebes]

Submissiveness is a synthesis of learned and nature. The nature element could be the diminutive build and a difference in mental fortitude. The learned is more obvious, the natural power balance between mother and child, father and child and the first interactions between a friend.

Mental fortitude basically refers to aggressiveness and passivity. This is something one can observe before even a baby is babbling. How aggressive do they desire to address their needs and so forth.

 

[intothewoods]

Submissiveness is a synthesis of learned and nature. The nature element could be the diminutive build and a difference in mental fortitude. The learned is more obvious, the natural power balance between mother and child, father and child and the first interactions between a friend.

Mental fortitude basically refers to aggressiveness and passivity. This is something one can observe before even a baby is babbling. How aggressive do they desire to address their needs and so forth.

They say personalities are formed in the first few years, but I don't think a happy, easy-going baby translates to submissiveness as a personality trait.

There are many behavioral qualities which we could equate to submissiveness if we really stretched the definition, but really, a person could just be shy. Or mellow. Or disinterested in social situations.

 

[ownedsubgal]

In my experiences, very few people are Dominant or submissive 24/7. When they are, I don't tend to like them much. I tend to see such Doms are arrogant and overbearing. I tend to see such subs and social door mats.

In my own life I must be Dominant in almost all aspects to make things work well. It's not a role I enjoy or that I am comfortable with. I seek a balance that makes me feel more secure in a world that insists I take charge.

I think you'll find many people who have jobs that force them to act in roles that do not suit them. Therefore, they often seek a balance and some comfort, in their private, intimate, lives. One that gives them the role they feel they really are inside.

Not everyone is the same, to but say that if people are not always Dominant or always submissive they aren't really Dominant or submissive at all, isn't right, IMO.

actually Furry, i don't think we disagree much here. there is a difference between who you are, and how you act. you are right, many people are forced to take on roles completely contrary to their true natures in order to survive or thrive in this world. but they're just playing a role. that doesn't change who they really are, and being able to put on a show of authority and control doesn't make someone any less a true submissive, imo. it's those people who do not have to play these roles, who are internally "balanced," who i question having any actual dominant or submissive orientation.

in my case, i've always sucked at roleplay. no matter how much effort or fervent hope i've put into the acting, i've never been able to make anyone buy me as assertive, authoritative, in control. so i'm lucky to live a life now where i don't have to try.

 

[Xelebes]

They say personalities are formed in the first few years, but I don't think a happy, easy-going baby translates to submissiveness as a personality trait.

There are many behavioral qualities which we could equate to submissiveness if we really stretched the definition, but really, a person could just be shy. Or mellow. Or disinterested in social situations.

That is why I included the second component - the learned behaviours from the parents, siblings and friends.

A passive person amongst many aggressive persons may become a submissive kind of person.

An aggressive person amongst many passive persons may become a dominant kindof person.

A more equal distribution may make them less dominant or submissive.

That's my educated guess.

 

[Homburg]

See, in modern western society the definition of alpha has changed somewhat. Wimpy little guys who have wealth and/or power become honorary alpha males and muscle-bound jocks are increasingly being disenfranchised by metrosexual graduates and white-collar workers

I've never understood this. I've never seen the jock types as particularly alpha. No offense to the jocks here that are, but most jocks are just like most people (ie sheep). They're just more buff. It is will to power (if you will excuse the Nietszchean phrase) that makes a man or woman alpha, mental characteristics that have bupkis to do with physical ideals.

 

[FurryFury]

actually Furry, i don't think we disagree much here. there is a difference between who you are, and how you act. you are right, many people are forced to take on roles completely contrary to their true natures in order to survive or thrive in this world. but they're just playing a role. that doesn't change who they really are, and being able to put on a show of authority and control doesn't make someone any less a true submissive, imo. it's those people who do not have to play these roles, who are internally "balanced," who i question having any actual dominant or submissive orientation.

in my case, i've always sucked at roleplay. no matter how much effort or fervent hope i've put into the acting, i've never been able to make anyone buy me as assertive, authoritative, in control. so i'm lucky to live a life now where i don't have to try.

Kewl! We agree!

*HUG*

I'm very good at taking control. People tend to assume, after seeing me in social, home or work situations, (if they know I'm kinky) that I'm a Dom/me.

 

[YourCaptor]

I would agree with what many have said, that the majority of people are submissive.

 

[00Syd]

In my everyday life I'm neither submissive or dominant, I do not display "typical" traits of either, I am not in a dominant position in my life, but I'm not in a submissive position either, and I don't feel like I am ever playing a role that is contrary to who "I am." I am submissive in personal relationships (be they with a lover, a family member, or a friend) and in sexual situations. That's what feels the most comfortable in those situations and that's what feels good in those situations.

But at the same time, I don't feel like the reason I enjoy being submissive is because I'm dominant in my everyday life, I'm not. Its just what feels best, and what turns me on, and it always has been, but when I'm not acting particularly submissive I don't feel like I'm playing a role, I don't feel weird or uncomfortable.

I wouldn't say that my "true nature" is completely submissive, but I wouldn't call myself a Dom or a switch either. I guess the reason for that is that in my mind, all D/s, and those "roles" (or states of being, or natures, or whatever) are completely in the context of personal and sexual relationships. I am not "a submissive" or "a dominant" or "a switch" or any other D/s label in my everyday life, but that doesn't make me any less submissive or any less kinky. D/s, to me, just doesn't translate into my everyday life. But that still doesn't mean that I'm "only in the bedroom" or that I couldn't be in a 24/7 D/s relationship, because that would be a relationship, and I see D/s completely in that context.


Does any of that make sense? I'm tired and I'm afraid I'm rambling. I'm not even sure who or what I'm responding to anymore



ETA: I also don't think that the majority of people are submissive. Not being "Dominant" doesn't automatically make you submissive.

 

[JMohegan]

I've never understood this. I've never seen the jock types as particularly alpha. No offense to the jocks here that are, but most jocks are just like most people (ie sheep). They're just more buff. It is will to power (if you will excuse the Nietszchean phrase) that makes a man or woman alpha, mental characteristics that have bupkis to do with physical ideals.

A lot depends on the sport, of course, but if team coordination is necessary for success then the capacity for obedience is critical. That's absolutely true. Off the field, however, athletes are just like any other subset of the population - displaying a wide range of personalities and proclivities. There are non-physical benefits to athletic success (confidence, self-discipline, and so on), but of course there are other, non-athletic, ways to develop these traits as well.

Our soon-to-be Most Alpha American is an athlete! "Will to power" is surely key, as you say, though I don't believe will alone is enough to explain his success.