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

Which trait should your children have?

Primalex

Primalex

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Posts
6,089
Let's say that one day all offspring are genetically modified to eliminate illnesses and such and there would be no other way to have children and you would have to fill out a form to make a choice.

[ ] Dominant
[ ] Submissive
[ ] Neither (Vanilla)
[ ] Both (Switch)

There would be no "I don't care" option, because the hospital wouldn't want to be sued later because you didn't like the result - not making the choice would mean not having a child.

How would you choose? Would you combine the option with the sex? Would you make different choices if you had multiple children?
 
I'd make them a switch so that they can experience and enjoy both sides of the coin rather than be limited to just one. I can see the potential for future conflict with a one-sided partner but I would still risk that/those conflicts for their extra enrichment.

Although I wouldn't be comfortable deciding the specific details of what people/gender/fetishes they are attracted to because I'm certain that opens a door to an even steeper and even more slippery slope of moral grey areas than the one we're already treading when discussing eugenics.
 
Dominant, send the spawn out to go HAM and conquer the world.

How would you choose? Would you combine the option with the sex? Would you make different choices if you had multiple children?
Click to expand...

Needed to finish some dishes and forgot all these questions.

I choose dominant because it's not like me. I don't want my spawn to be like me. It's kind of shitty sometimes. Sex doesn't matter and amount doesn't matter. I'm choosing dominant regardless because, well, why the fuck not?
 
Last edited:
Stag of Oberon said:
there wouldn't be, because a switch would most likely NOT BE ALLOWED to date a one-sided partner.

IF it were so easily identified and encoded, it would be a part of your dating profile (from birth), so that a switch would only be matched up to date other switches... which in itself presents a problem, depending on the style of switch.
Click to expand...

Gattaca discussions are the thread next door!

:)
 
Stag of Oberon said:
there wouldn't be, because a switch would most likely NOT BE ALLOWED to date a one-sided partner.

IF it were so easily identified and encoded, it would be a part of your dating profile (from birth), so that a switch would only be matched up to date other switches... which in itself presents a problem, depending on the style of switch.

ugh

fortunately (sortof) they're finding that genes have to be activated. meaning that it's not a question of nature or nurture, its nature AND nurture. SO even if you could identify "domly" genes, it's no guarantee.
Click to expand...
I think you're framing this in a truly more Orwellian light than it deserves. Who's to say that just due to the existence of eugenics then it follows that society is planned and strictly controlled to the point where you're forced to court somebody deemed somewhat compatible?

I imagine that the information would be considered confidential like it is right now, and if we take the question literally and out of hypotheticals then the most the parents would know is the barest bone of all bare bones regarding the kids sexuality so it would be difficult to massively name-and-shame them.
 
Dominant because life is easier for a dominant personality in business and financial terms. I assume by ticking the box my children would be extremely successful at whatever they do, and I would hope they would be successful enough to be able to meet and enjoy the company of submissive / switch who would support and complete them.

So if they have to have an inclination that is more likely to make them able to take their rightful places as rulers or the world, then dominant

Unless it's purely a sexual trait in which case submissive or switch because it's more pleasurable IMO (I may be biased somewhat)
 
Primalex said:
Let's say that one day all offspring are genetically modified to eliminate illnesses and such and there would be no other way to have children and you would have to fill out a form to make a choice.

[ ] Dominant
[ ] Submissive
[ ] Neither (Vanilla)
[ ] Both (Switch)

There would be no "I don't care" option, because the hospital wouldn't want to be sued later because you didn't like the result - not making the choice would mean not having a child.

How would you choose? Would you combine the option with the sex? Would you make different choices if you had multiple children?
Click to expand...


I would choose Submissive.

Firstly, most "submissives" I know are strong caretakers. Many are not submissive in "life" even if they are in the bedroom.
I'm new, so I'm NOT generalizing. This is just what I've observed in the past year.

Secondly, Primalex, you are talking genetics. But what about taught behaviors, Nature vs, Nurture? I don't think I was born submissive, like I was born with brown hair and hazel eyes, but was, IN PART, taught to be/react this way. Our experiences shape us.

A Submissive can learn to be more dominant. I don't know if a Dominant can learn to be more submissive. Opinion based on nothing but gut.
 
If this were purely hypothetical, disregarding the ethics of genetic trait manipulation being discussed already, I would chose them to be vanilla. Or, preferably dominant, as they would have a greater chance for success and happiness. Although from a parenting standpoint, trying to raise a dominant would be a handful, and I would want to make sure they had a good moral compass, a strong sense of right and wrong, so as not to be dominant and ruthless. I would not want my offspring to face the challenges I have had to as submissive and male.
 
I can't even imagine choosing this for my children at birth, especially as I believe all are equally desirable. I suppose I would choose Dominant for sons, which seems horribly sexist. My gut is to choose switch for daughters. Heck, maybe switch for all! (Or is that the non-answer answer...)
 
_Necrosomantic_ said:
Well, I was going to seriously answer the question...

But now, I'm going full on sub so I can have my hypothetical sissy kids, kick your big bad Dom kids' asses at school, then go for ice cream :D
Click to expand...

Wait, we were supposed to be serious? I was planning to become a baby factory to produce generals for my army so that I could take over the world. When I'm ruler the first general to kill me takes the crown. If I die of natural causes my crown goes to my favorite. I'm definitely going to have a favorite. After that it's a game of Last One Standing. I haven't yet determined how many I'm going to squeeze out.
 
MeekMe said:
Wait, we were supposed to be serious? I was planning to become a baby factory to produce generals for my army so that I could take over the world. When I'm ruler the first general to kill me takes the crown. If I die of natural causes my crown goes to my favorite. I'm definitely going to have a favorite. After that it's a game of Last One Standing. I haven't yet determined how many I'm going to squeeze out.
Click to expand...

My next 5 will all be Submissives.
 
Confident, outgoing children sometimes end up having very powerful and responsible jobs that require dominance to be part of the hierarchy of the organisation, they may have to manage a set of people but also submit to their superior or their clients.

But a very dominant person in everyday life can be very submissive sexually. Lot's of male CEO's are subs and love to be hog tied and humiliated.

So saying when a child is born it's either submissive, dominant, neither or both is detrimental to the new life. I think I would probably protest about any type of genetically modified babies.

Sam xx
 
ToPleaseHim said:
Do you think this is a stereotype?
Click to expand...

Well, the only knowledge I have about the sexual preferences of CEOs comes from the moment it ends up as scandal and there we have:

Mark Hurd (Hewlett Packard) -> sexual harrassment
Dov Charney (American Apparal) -> sexual harrassment
Mark McInnes (David Jones Ltd.) -> sexual harrassment
Steven J. Heyer (Starwood Hotels) -> sexual harrassment
Roger Ailes (Fox News) -> sexual harrassment
...

If there is a pattern, I see people ignoring rules, which would be more on the D than the s side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DomBETO
A glass of wine never hurts... or does it?
Replies
11
Views
787
Keiiii
Keiiii
A
For Subbies seeking Dommes.
Replies
2
Views
829
artslut86
A
K
BDSM & Autism Part 1
Replies
2
Views
436
Blase
B
K
BDSM & Autism and me--hello!
Replies
11
Views
426
Bramblethorn
Bramblethorn
K
BDSM & Autism: Part 3
Replies
4
Views
352
goldytheGoldfish
goldytheGoldfish
Back
Top