COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Healthy Sub

midwestyankee said:
The more I read items like the article quoted above, the more I become convinced that for some people BDSM must resemble a religion and they, dammit, are going to be immortalized as one of the Thirteen Apostles. Others seem married to the notion that they have to read and subscribe to the fluffyness in order to truly belong to The Religion of BDSM. And I think we all know what the evangelists look (and post) like.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. It does feel like they're "spreading the gospel." :shudders: It's unnerving.
 
MeekMe said:
I agree with this. It does feel like they're "spreading the gospel." :shudders: It's unnerving.
Click to expand...

It felt even more like that 10-15 years ago. For someone new to everything and trying to find answers online it was totally unnerving.
I remember being banned from certain forum just because I refused to use small letters in my nickname as a switch. Internet was full of that shit back then, not so much now.
 
All_4_Love said:
If you read the article in its entirety, which I did state was his "theory" earlier, he does not theorize that a woman's environment turns her submissive. He says that there is a certain temperament that an infant is born with, which is then subsequently developed into a submissive personality, more or less, based on environment.
Click to expand...

Aaaaaaannnnnnd I strongly question his theory. Because if you boil it all down, the original author is proposing that there is essentially a submissive gene that women have, that makes them more likely to be submissive. it's as if he's arguing that if one notices this biological trait early enough, little girls can be groomed to be submissive. (At least that's my interpretation of the writing.)

For the record, I am not a product of an abusive background. Traditional, yes, as in what my father said was final. He ruled our home with an iron fist. He is also one of the most loving, affectionate, and compassionate men I have ever known, on his terms, of course. :)

When she first posted this, I made what I felt was the smartest decision by staying out of the conversation, judging by my previous discussions regarding the matter, first because she didn't tell me she was going to start a thread on it, and secondly she did not quote my sig specifically in her OP. Now, she has, so I chose to speak up and offer clarification.
Click to expand...

I don't believe people interested in BDSM are automatically more or less likely to be products of abusive backgrounds. I do recognize that it's a very common assumption amongst both kinky and non-kinky groups. The "healthy submissive" writings (IMO) feed into that assumption.

MeekMe said:
I think one of the traits in this biologically grounded array that makes up temperament is common to all submissives. And that is social responsiveness. I would suggest that the baby who is temperamentally "set" to register and respond selectively and sensitively to social cues has the seeds of submissiveness in her nature. This is the baby that will search the environment for a human face; who will be attuned to, and very responsive to the human voice; who will preferentially and selectively attend to, and process, human interaction.
Click to expand...


Oh for the bloody love of all that is holy... dude needs to read a bit of child development theory before spouting such nonsense. ALL babies are wired to search for faces, respond to voice patterns, etc. In fact, when infants DON'T do those things, it's an early indicator they may be at risk for having a spectrum disorder.

This baby, as she grows into childhood, will be easy to control, to shape, especially if she is temperamentally on the "easy" side. This little girl will be exquisitely sensitive to criticism and correction, to disapproval, to praise. Rather than requiring a raised voice to correct, a raised eyebrow will often do.
Click to expand...


Seriously? Ugh... (p_-)

I can't even continue reading, because the assumptions get so outrageous. "The Troubled Submissive" isn't any better.
Click to expand...

Creepy McCreepPants is creepy. :rolleyes:

That last bolded bit from the article, is what caused me to make the "grooming" comment, above. I have more thoughts, but I'm on my way to an appointment; maybe later.
 
CutieMouse said:
Aaaaaaannnnnnd I strongly question his theory. Because if you boil it all down, the original author is proposing that there is essentially a submissive gene that women have, that makes them more likely to be submissive. it's as if he's arguing that if one notices this biological trait early enough, little girls can be groomed to be submissive. (At least that's my interpretation of the writing.)
Click to expand...


If this is wrong, then what is right?

I mean, if children don't get their personality from genes or their environment and how they are raised, where do they get it from? (And why do parents bother at all, if they can't do anything?)
 
Primalex said:
If this is wrong, then what is right?

I mean, if children don't get their personality from genes or their environment and how they are raised, where do they get it from? (And why do parents bother at all, if they can't do anything?)
Click to expand...

I disagree with the author's premise that you can look at how an infant girl responds to the faces and voices around her, and accurately determine if she is/ isn't destined to be submissive. Can someone assign XYZ behaviors in infancy to "submissive" traits, and raise the infant (child, young adult) to react "submissively" to the world around her? Yes. But that doesn't mean the child was meant to be that way from birth. It means an adult in their life decided to encourage those traits.
 
MeekMe said:
I agree with this. It does feel like they're "spreading the gospel." :shudders: It's unnerving.
Click to expand...

It's fine to believe that inasmuch as any other sort of belief, but for pete's sake it'd make the scene a better place if they'd just kept it to their damn selves.
 
Primalex said:
If this is wrong, then what is right?

I mean, if children don't get their personality from genes or their environment and how they are raised, where do they get it from? (And why do parents bother at all, if they can't do anything?)
Click to expand...

Research neuro-plasticity and gene plasticity. These things are all fluid, they all affect each other throughout a person's life, traits and behaviors can and do regularly get switched on and off. So basically the answer is all AND none of the above.
 
CutieMouse said:
I disagree with the author's premise that you can look at how an infant girl responds to the faces and voices around her, and accurately determine if she is/ isn't destined to be submissive.
Click to expand...



He wrote that infants have different temperaments.

And he wrote that submissive people have a temperament with increased social responsiveness.

And he wrote that people with increased social responsiveness are easier to manipulate, because the reaction of his or her social environment to his or her actions is more important for such a person and therefore will affect his or her actions more.


Lumping these three statements together in a sentence and adding a wrong inference^1 that was never made and garnishing it with exaggerations ("accurately") - well, yes, feel free to disagree with that, but what you wrote was not the premise.

The first statement is scientifically proven.
The third statement is in my opinion a logical conclusion that is impossible to rebut.
This basically only leaves the second statement open for debate.

*shrugs*

^1 If A, then B != If B, then A.
 
KoPilot said:
Research neuro-plasticity and gene plasticity. These things are all fluid, they all affect each other throughout a person's life, traits and behaviors can and do regularly get switched on and off.
Click to expand...

Microsoft answer.

100% correct, 100% useless.
 
Last edited:
Netzach said:
This IS a piece that's been on the internet forever plus, I must have encountered all this via Gloria Brame's site in the year 1. 1997 or something. Presented with a huge amount of AUTHORITY. As a lot of internet reading from the era was, regarding BDSM. A lot of people monetizing and setting themselves up as experts. I think there's a little less of that stance, while people are still monetizing.

A THEORY is typically arrived at and then tested with information in order to be a theory anyone wants to present authoritatively. Are the authors spending a lot of time with hundreds of infants to sort out these personality types? Are they cobbling together other people's research and pooping it out, and if so, how much and from where? Or are they consulting five or six moms they know? Are they asking their own mother what they were like because they're a sub?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's where I saw it first too.
I had almost forgotten the name of that site.
 
All_4_Love,

I apologise for not telling you in advance that I was going to start a thread on this but since I had not decided to until after our conversation i could not tell you. I did not immediately post your quote but I did make reference to it and other LIT postees asked about it. I loved it when we discussed it and I hope I did not offend you in any way. I understand that others think it is fluff I do not. Thank you for sending me the quote when we talked. I followed up with it and read a good bit.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
CutieMouse said:
Aaaaaaannnnnnd I strongly question his theory. Because if you boil it all down, the original author is proposing that there is essentially a submissive gene that women have, that makes them more likely to be submissive. it's as if he's arguing that if one notices this biological trait early enough, little girls can be groomed to be submissive. (At least that's my interpretation of the writing.)



I don't believe people interested in BDSM are automatically more or less likely to be products of abusive backgrounds. I do recognize that it's a very common assumption amongst both kinky and non-kinky groups. The "healthy submissive" writings (IMO) feed into that assumption.



Oh for the bloody love of all that is holy... dude needs to read a bit of child development theory before spouting such nonsense. ALL babies are wired to search for faces, respond to voice patterns, etc. In fact, when infants DON'T do those things, it's an early indicator they may be at risk for having a spectrum disorder.



Creepy McCreepPants is creepy. :rolleyes:

That last bolded bit from the article, is what caused me to make the "grooming" comment, above. I have more thoughts, but I'm on my way to an appointment; maybe later.
Click to expand...

It truly sounds like someone looking to groom submissives. It's extra creepy. :( Reading those articles didn't warm my heart, they made me sick.
 
I just don't get any of this line of questioning at all. I don't get the mind behind it.

What's wrong with not being "normal"? What's wrong with being a little fucked up, with not being "hard-wired" or "born" such in such way? Who gives a flying fuck if something is a learned or conditioned trait?

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT: WE ARE WHO WE ARE, PEOPLE

Stop asking "why?" if the answer is predicated on bringing other people with you unwittingly and unwillingly. You don't need to surround yourself with a mob of creepy yes men in order to justify what gets you off. NOBODY CARES.

There is no true this or genuine that

There is no female this or male that

There is no right way or wrong way

There are no hard lines, strict definitions, rules, gud n' proper aspirations

There is only one of you, there is only one of your super special combination of kinks and wants and squicks

And you just gotta fucking deal with it

Stop trying to appeal to authority, stop trying to seek outside justification from people you don't even know, stop trying to inadvertently tell other people how to do their kink or role because your conception of your own is so darned fragile

I don't consent to being used as Exhibit A in your twisted, anti-empirical justification for shit that is by its very nature irrational.
 
I googled "healthy sub" and this is what popped up:

Blimpie-Turkey-Cheese.jpg


Not sure if that's helpful. :rolleyes:
 
True and also there is no normal though most of us have bought that there is a normal we should shoot for.

:rose:

KoPilot said:
I just don't get any of this line of questioning at all. I don't get the mind behind it.

What's wrong with not being "normal"? What's wrong with being a little fucked up, with not being "hard-wired" or "born" such in such way? Who gives a flying fuck if something is a learned or conditioned trait?

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT: WE ARE WHO WE ARE, PEOPLE

Stop asking "why?" if the answer is predicated on bringing other people with you unwittingly and unwillingly. You don't need to surround yourself with a mob of creepy yes men in order to justify what gets you off. NOBODY CARES.

There is no true this or genuine that

There is no female this or male that

There is no right way or wrong way

There are no hard lines, strict definitions, rules, gud n' proper aspirations

There is only one of you, there is only one of your super special combination of kinks and wants and squicks

And you just gotta fucking deal with it

Stop trying to appeal to authority, stop trying to seek outside justification from people you don't even know, stop trying to inadvertently tell other people how to do their kink or role because your conception of your own is so darned fragile

I don't consent to being used as Exhibit A in your twisted, anti-empirical justification for shit that is by its very nature irrational.
Click to expand...
 
cmslt2326 said:
All_4_Love,

I apologise for not telling you in advance that I was going to start a thread on this but since I had not decided to until after our conversation i could not tell you. I did not immediately post your quote but I did make reference to it and other LIT postees asked about it. I loved it when we discussed it and I hope I did not offend you in any way. I understand that others think it is fluff I do not. Thank you for sending me the quote when we talked. I followed up with it and read a good bit.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

You're very welcome, friend. No apology needed. I enjoyed talking to you, as well. Take care. Maybe we will talk again some day. :rose:
 
CutieMouse said:
Aaaaaaannnnnnd I strongly question his theory. Because if you boil it all down, the original author is proposing that there is essentially a submissive gene that women have, that makes them more likely to be submissive. it's as if he's arguing that if one notices this biological trait early enough, little girls can be groomed to be submissive. (At least that's my interpretation of the writing.)



I don't believe people interested in BDSM are automatically more or less likely to be products of abusive backgrounds. I do recognize that it's a very common assumption amongst both kinky and non-kinky groups. The "healthy submissive" writings (IMO) feed into that assumption.



Oh for the bloody love of all that is holy... dude needs to read a bit of child development theory before spouting such nonsense. ALL babies are wired to search for faces, respond to voice patterns, etc. In fact, when infants DON'T do those things, it's an early indicator they may be at risk for having a spectrum disorder.



Creepy McCreepPants is creepy. :rolleyes:

That last bolded bit from the article, is what caused me to make the "grooming" comment, above. I have more thoughts, but I'm on my way to an appointment; maybe later.
Click to expand...

Does anyone realize how often that same "if someone's upset it's my fault, if someone's unhappy I must fix it" sensitivity pops up among totally Dominant ID'd people? I've had a LOT of candor-filled conversations with Dom/Top/Active guys about the perils of being solution crazy fixers of items that are broken or not broken without self-restraint. You can be into active control and still have "it's all me" insecurities (because I'll bet my left tit most of that personality is shaped from 6-12 anyway, not as much as a baby.)

I'm left handed, so I must be a lesbian. It's about as related.
 
Last edited:
Primalex said:
He wrote that infants have different temperaments.

And he wrote that submissive people have a temperament with increased social responsiveness.

And he wrote that people with increased social responsiveness are easier to manipulate, because the reaction of his or her social environment to his or her actions is more important for such a person and therefore will affect his or her actions more.


Lumping these three statements together in a sentence and adding a wrong inference^1 that was never made and garnishing it with exaggerations ("accurately") - well, yes, feel free to disagree with that, but what you wrote was not the premise.

The first statement is scientifically proven.
The third statement is in my opinion a logical conclusion that is impossible to rebut.
This basically only leaves the second statement open for debate.

*shrugs*

^1 If A, then B != If B, then A.
Click to expand...


There are too many stubborn social non-butterfly contrarians who answer to one person who makes them excited and there are too many people-pleasing yes men who love to be King of Fuck Mountain with their own woman or man or whatever they are into for part B to hold up or fact C or A to be the answer to "why kink, why?"
 
Netzach said:
Does anyone realize how often that same "if someone's upset it's my fault, if someone's unhappy I must fix it" sensitivity pops up among totally Dominant ID'd people? I've had a LOT of candor-filled conversations with Dom/Top/Active guys about the perils of being solution crazy fixers of items that are broken or not broken without self-restraint. You can be into active control and still have "it's all me" insecurities (because I'll bet my left tit most of that personality is shaped from 6-12 anyway, not as much as a baby.)

I'm left handed, so I must be a lesbian. It's about as related.
Click to expand...

Yep.

I think the thing that made me go "Whaaaa?" so hard, is that out of 5 children, none fit the author's theory that behavior in infancy can help determine a person's submissive potential.

#1 - spectrum disorder, but weirdly social even as a toddler (for someone with a spectrum disorder)

#2 - the world's most intense, challenging, high maintenance, difficult, demanding infant and toddler... who is currently a very people pleasing, quiet, sensitive to facial expressions/ vocal tones young adult with traits that might be classified as "submissive" by the typical meme.

#3 - calmest, quietest, most responsive to faces/ vocal tones of the bunch [as an infant/ toddler]... as a young adult, she could give a rat's ass about disappointing anyone.

#4 - engineer extraordinaire from the age of 12 months, constantly in trouble/ danger until he was 5-ish... and currently the most straight and narrow, do the right thing, cater-to-everyone's needs kid in the bunch.

#5 - Very similar to #1 as an infant and toddler, and continuing to be demanding as hell (as a 10 year old). God knows what his personality will be as he grows.
 
CutieMouse said:
Yep.

I think the thing that made me go "Whaaaa?" so hard, is that out of 5 children, none fit the author's theory that behavior in infancy can help determine a person's submissive potential.

#1 - spectrum disorder, but weirdly social even as a toddler (for someone with a spectrum disorder)

#2 - the world's most intense, challenging, high maintenance, difficult, demanding infant and toddler... who is currently a very people pleasing, quiet, sensitive to facial expressions/ vocal tones young adult with traits that might be classified as "submissive" by the typical meme.

#3 - calmest, quietest, most responsive to faces/ vocal tones of the bunch [as an infant/ toddler]... as a young adult, she could give a rat's ass about disappointing anyone.

#4 - engineer extraordinaire from the age of 12 months, constantly in trouble/ danger until he was 5-ish... and currently the most straight and narrow, do the right thing, cater-to-everyone's needs kid in the bunch.

#5 - Very similar to #1 as an infant and toddler, and continuing to be demanding as hell (as a 10 year old). God knows what his personality will be as he grows.
Click to expand...

And all of this is interesting, but parenthetical at best to sexuality. Basically, it's a really bad idea to bet on what other people want in bed based on what you see in front of you if you're not involved directly.

I'm not a doctor, so I can't be sure about that, but damn if I don't have more anecdotal evidence than the people officially not studying BDSM at all formally. (No money for kinky.)

I've dealt with a lot of people and a lot of sexual preferences, and a lot of people whose clearly broadcast personalities are antithetical - not just slightly, but *intensely* antithetical to any and all guesses you would make about their fantasies, their desires, and their boner fodder. People having sex = completely fucking surprising.

When you isolate the reason a dude wants to have sex with his car tailpipe, then I'll be ready to assume you can type a submissive woman, a significantly larger and wider demographic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Are F/m D/s Collabs Possible for sub author? If so, how?
Replies
4
Views
153
HottieOlwen
HottieOlwen
Cardinal
FLR v Femdom
Replies
21
Views
1K
MorlockIam
M
M
Diving into bdsm whithout damaging a relationship
Replies
14
Views
430
Bella857Donna
B
Showmewhatchugot84
Question for women in FLRs
Replies
14
Views
553
IrisAlthea
IrisAlthea
InCNCestBangPie
Sub and Switch Ladies: How Do You Feel About a Dom Who Doesn't Want To Try Submission?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
cocktaildress21
C
Back
Top