submissiveness, could it be genetic?

[JMohegan]

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.

It made sense to me.

I see each person as a complex social creature, with appetites for exerting control, ceding control, asserting independence, negotiation, and compromise that vary widely depending on context and company. A person's skill and capacity for these attributes vary widely as well.

 

[Homburg]

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.

Exactly, vis a vis the dominance/submission standpoint, jocks are no different from the rest of the populace.

I agree on Obama. Will alone is insufficient, but he is also operating at a vastly different level than Joe Dom. Will only gets you so far, much as a good time in the 40 will only get you so far on the football field.

--

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

Agreed. Though some will see comparison inevitable, I said "sheep" in my earlier post, and meant it. While it may seem counterintuitive, being an acknowledged submissive in the D/s sense takes its' own measure of will beyond that which most people display. You have to have sufficient will both to know yourself well enough, and to act on your desires.

 

[Netzach]

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.

That's a power ladder, not autonomy, those are different things. People can be attracted to the allure of the possibility of power and never necessarily get any, but - well this is why armies function, recruit and continue.

And I've known plenty of people who love to swing their dick out there in the world and get it stood on when they get home.

I've also met enough people who can't function unless they are taking care of other people before themselves, or think they are. The idea that "most people seek to avoid answering to others" is limited. I ask how many people take active steps to fulfill that desire, even if they make life a hell of a lot more difficult?

Only people who would be worse off otherwise. It begins to narrow the field.

 

[slavemarissa]

first of all i haven't read everyones posts here **guilt** because it's late and i'm getting tired but here's my take on things...

Ever since i can remember - meaning about 2yrs old i guess - and possibly beforehand, i have had very submissive slave like fantasies although with no obvious sexual theme. As i've grown up i've understood more about what they are and what they mean and they started to become a lot sexually focused. Now i'm an online slave/sub and am loving it.
However, i can have a slightly more dominant personality as depending on who i'm speaking to, ie how much respect and trust i have with the person, i can be very different. For example if i was speaking to someone online who i have not much respect for or i do not know them so well, i will i guess become fairly dominant, spoilt and bratty. Whereas if i have a lot of respect for them i tend to be much more submissive. I guess that can be the same with anyone though.

Also, i can be extremely strong-minded depending on the circumstances and also extremely undecisive (spelling?) and an "i don't mind" or "up to you" person that everyone hates....

All of this gave me ideas of being a switch, but my body does not respond well to that lol...

Sorry maybe that is all slightly off the point and i'm starting to ramble...

Here's my genetic arguement (tbh, not a clue what side i'm on - i'm just stating my facts):
my dad has an extremely dominant disposition i feel, he can be fairly aggressive too - as far as i'm aware most of this has not been passed down to me except perhaps if i'm really angry and upset about something.
my mum i guess is slightly dominant but tends to be a "taker of s**t" - thinking about it, maybe this is more what i'm like but slightly more voluntarily than she is.

I don't know about the whole kink thing as my parents divorced when i was very young and haven't had any long term relationships since.

Again, sorry about the ramble......

IMHO i think it varies for each and every one of us, some of us may have a submissive or dominant gene in us but it can be changed through how we are nurtured, we may be submissive but pick up dominant traits from the people that surround us in everyday life and vise-versa....

 

[slavemarissa]

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 completely agree with all of this, maybe i'm contradicting my own statements, i'm not sure but reading this, we all make choices in life to submit or dominate. For example, is schools, many of us have (but by no means all of us) conformed to or submited to the authority of teachers, however outside of this evnvironment, we made be very independent, and responsible people, perhaps leading a group of some sort. But we did conform and submit. I feel that this can also be shown even moreso in the workplace as we get to an age where unless we are THE BOSS of an entire company (and even then i think we do a bit) we conform to our employers, we have more of a reason to do this and perhaps it is because we know more about rewards and consequences but we choose to submit to certain people throughout life no matter your usual disposition.

(Edited to add this: i''ve realised i have completely contradicted everything i have said and everything i think. I'M CONFUSED AHH! and i've repeated a lot of what everyone else has said, so i'm sorry and now i promise i will go to bed and not check this until i've slept a little bit. night. xx.)

 

[YourCaptor]

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

I don't know, just look around on campus, so many people fashion their appearance to some arbitrary, dictated fashion. Completely buy into the few marketed forms of entertainment that are available. Pursue careers because they will pay money. They are being lead around on a very short leash.

And its not the people who create these franchises that hold the leash, they are being dragged around on it too. Shaping their products to fit into the narrow niches that sell.

 

[00Syd]

I don't know, just look around on campus, so many people fashion their appearance to some arbitrary, dictated fashion. Completely buy into the few marketed forms of entertainment that are available. Pursue careers because they will pay money. They are being lead around on a very short leash.

And its not the people who create these franchises that hold the leash, they are being dragged around on it too. Shaping their products to fit into the narrow niches that sell.

A desire to conform doesn't make you "submissive," it makes you human.

If your level of conformity was what made you submissive or dominant, I would be some uber domme, but I'm not. So? There is a difference between being submissive and being passive, or any of the other traits that are associated with submissives. Having one or more of these traits does not automatically make you submissive.

Lets take my ex for example. He obviously wasn't dominant, but he wasn't at all submissive either. If he was submissive, he probably would have had some desire to top me to make me happy or something, right? But he realized that he wasn't a dom or a top, and that acting as one didn't make him happy, so he didn't do it. So he's neither dominant or submissive, so what does this make him? A vanilla switch? Nothing?

I do believe it is very, very possible to be neither dominant or submissive. For the majority of people, no D/s label applies. And you know why? Because they aren't involved with D/s. Trying to fit people into a D/s mold by calling them submissive because they hold some traits that you might associate with a sub is silly.

ETA: And to say that people who conform to something that you might see as bad are submissive is kind of insulting. It's basically insinuating that that submissives are weak willed and of weak mind.

 

[Homburg]

I do believe it is very, very possible to be neither dominant or submissive. For the majority of people, no D/s label applies. And you know why? Because they aren't involved with D/s. Trying to fit people into a D/s mold by calling them submissive because they hold some traits that you might associate with a sub is silly.

ETA: And to say that people who conform to something that you might see as bad are submissive is kind of insulting. It's basically insinuating that that submissives are weak willed and of weak mind.

Absolutely, and what I was trying to allude to. I think the old saw about most people being submissive is based off the simple fact that if you bark a reasonable order at most people, in a properly authoritative voice and look like you know what you're doing, most folk will comply. This does not make them submissive, just sheep. Following fashion and trends does not make someone submissive, just trendy sheep.

As I said previously, and you say here, there is no corellation between submissive and weak-willed, contrary to outside observers ignorant of what is going on. I can honestly say that some of the most willful, intractable people I've ever met were submissives/slaves, they just melted into a puddle of happily submissive go when their Owner was around. My favourite example of this is a retired SEAL who is the s in an M/s relationship. He's a bad-ass, willful, strong-willed, rasty old warrior, and no one in the world would call him weak-willed. Yet he is all sorts of "Yes, Mistress!" when she says "boy!"

The difference is that a submissive submits because it gives him or her fulfillment. Sheep just follow because they aren't imaginative or strong-willed enough to forge their own path.

 

[JMohegan]

That's a power ladder, not autonomy, those are different things. People can be attracted to the allure of the possibility of power and never necessarily get any, but - well this is why armies function, recruit and continue.

And I've known plenty of people who love to swing their dick out there in the world and get it stood on when they get home.

I've also met enough people who can't function unless they are taking care of other people before themselves, or think they are. The idea that "most people seek to avoid answering to others" is limited. I ask how many people take active steps to fulfill that desire, even if they make life a hell of a lot more difficult?

Only people who would be worse off otherwise. It begins to narrow the field.

There's a big difference between chafing when answering to others, and actively doing something to avoid that chafing. I agree, and yes - that narrows the field. But the point I was trying to make is that there's a difference between the urge for independence (i.e., controlling the terms of your own existence as much as possible) and the urge to control other people. I see those as different urges, and was asking if you do, too.

 

[JMohegan]

A desire to conform doesn't make you "submissive," it makes you human.

Yes. Regions, ethnic groups, religions, and social groups all over the world, throughout the course of human history, have adopted identifiable language, clothing, symbols, and customs. Aficionados of stylized, modern BDSM have adopted norms too!

I don't see this as evidence of people as submissive, and I don't see this as evidence of people as somehow weak-willed. The urge for identification with a group is more complex than that.

I'll also note that a certain degree of conformity to the norms of society is essential for dominance in the general societal sense. Nancy Pelosi is a very stylish woman, and while I don't think it's fair to say that she's powerful because she is a stylish, I also don't think she'd be the Most Alpha American Female if she had dressed in a nonconformist way since day one.

 

[intothewoods]

<snip> Nancy Pelosi is a very stylish woman, and while I don't think it's fair to say that she's powerful because she is a stylish, I also don't think she'd be the Most Alpha American Female if she had dressed in a nonconformist way since day one.

There has been a ton written about women, clothing and success. It's not on topic here, but I happen to find it fascinating.

There's a book called, I think, Sex & Power, by Susan Estrich, a feminist law professor (also, I gather an insane pundit-type, but I liked her book all the same) in which there's this great quote that's something like - the perfect female employee is neither too attractive nor too ugly, married or attached but with no kids, dresses conservatively yet approachably (but not too approachably)...and it goes on. Anyway, dressing for success is tricky business, and dressing for political success as a woman is a complete minefield.

 

[Keroin]

Very compelling topic. I have a slightly different perspective on nurture vs nature. I was adopted at birth. From the get go I was fundamentally different from every member of my immediate and extended adoptive family. In my mid-twenties, I made written contact with my biological mother and half-siblings, (and I keep in touch with some of them to this day). Here's what I discovered: When it came to skills and interests, I was, by far, most similar to my biological family. When it came to habits, beliefs, and patterns of behavior, I was most similar to my adoptive family.

Examples:

No one in my adoptive family is physically active. I participate in many sports. Every member of my biological family is active physically. I am a black belt in karate, my half brother is a black belt in tae-kwon do.

My biological family is religious and believes in god. My adoptive family did not go to church nor did they ever share their religious views with me or encourage me in any spiritual direction. My belief system is nil. I do not believe in any god nor do I identify with any religious group.

Those are just a couple, there are many, many more.

I agree that there is a wide and complicated spectrum of behaviour that is too easily pigeon-holed as submissive or dominant. My parents (adoptive) had no kink, (that I know of), but I would describe my mother as someone who topped from the bottom in their relationship, (passive aggressive). Sexually, I am submissive and I've always known it; socially my behavior runs the gamut. Without knowing my biological mother very well, if I had to guess, I'd say my sexual submissiveness is probably genetic. This statement is based purely on gut feeling and speculation, which hardly offers scientific proof. But, having said that, as a child/young adult my sexual nature was clear and powerful in exactly the same way all the traits I've learned I share with my biological family are.

My martini making skills, however, come from my dad. Not sure what to read into that.

 

[JMohegan]

There has been a ton written about women, clothing and success. It's not on topic here, but I happen to find it fascinating.

There's a book called, I think, Sex & Power, by Susan Estrich, a feminist law professor (also, I gather an insane pundit-type, but I liked her book all the same) in which there's this great quote that's something like - the perfect female employee is neither too attractive nor too ugly, married or attached but with no kids, dresses conservatively yet approachably (but not too approachably)...and it goes on. Anyway, dressing for success is tricky business, and dressing for political success as a woman is a complete minefield.

The effusiveness of this article is somewhat amusing, but the thrust of it is relevant to the discussion of power and conformity to fashion norms.

 

[intothewoods]

The effusiveness of this article is somewhat amusing, but the thrust of it is relevant to the discussion of power and conformity to fashion norms.

Attractive, but not too attractive.

Apparently there's a lot of pressure amongst staffers to dress quite blandly so as not to steal any limelight from their (typically male) bosses.

 

[YourCaptor]

A desire to conform doesn't make you "submissive," it makes you human.

If your level of conformity was what made you submissive or dominant, I would be some uber domme, but I'm not. So? There is a difference between being submissive and being passive, or any of the other traits that are associated with submissives. Having one or more of these traits does not automatically make you submissive.

Lets take my ex for example. He obviously wasn't dominant, but he wasn't at all submissive either. If he was submissive, he probably would have had some desire to top me to make me happy or something, right? But he realized that he wasn't a dom or a top, and that acting as one didn't make him happy, so he didn't do it. So he's neither dominant or submissive, so what does this make him? A vanilla switch? Nothing?

I do believe it is very, very possible to be neither dominant or submissive. For the majority of people, no D/s label applies. And you know why? Because they aren't involved with D/s. Trying to fit people into a D/s mold by calling them submissive because they hold some traits that you might associate with a sub is silly.

ETA: And to say that people who conform to something that you might see as bad are submissive is kind of insulting. It's basically insinuating that that submissives are weak willed and of weak mind.

Conformity, I think is indeed a submissive act.

However it should not be confused with adopting good ideas for personal use. For example, masking your appearance to function as a tool, extending your capabilities.

Conformity is buying into a pre-designed model for your appearance, taste, and personality, with accessories sold separately.

Conformity does not make you submissive, submissiveness makes you conform.

Just on the side, I’m not talking about sexual submission, nor am I making qualitative statements.

 

[00Syd]

Conformity, I think is indeed a submissive act.

However it should not be confused with adopting good ideas for personal use. For example, masking your appearance to function as a tool, extending your capabilities.

Conformity is buying into a pre-designed model for your appearance, taste, and personality, with accessories sold separately.

Conformity does not make you submissive, submissiveness makes you conform.

Just on the side, I’m not talking about sexual submission, nor am I making qualitative statements.

Well, that's insulting.

 

[myinnerslut]

i think because i submit i conform less to society. society certainly doesnt preach "go out and find yourself a nice guy to tie you up and beat you".

i became a slave while i was living on a college campus. society says go out and get drunk every friday. because of my submission i went the other way. society and i dont often see head to head. my submission actively causes conflict within my day to day life while i am living at home for the next few months.

in my opinion, the conformity your referring to has neither heads nor tails to do with the submission ive experienced.

like you, im not referring to sexual submission.

 

[intothewoods]

Conformity, I think is indeed a submissive act.

However it should not be confused with adopting good ideas for personal use. For example, masking your appearance to function as a tool, extending your capabilities.

Conformity is buying into a pre-designed model for your appearance, taste, and personality, with accessories sold separately.

Conformity does not make you submissive, submissiveness makes you conform.

Just on the side, I’m not talking about sexual submission, nor am I making qualitative statements.

I don't think conformity is a submissive act. Submission is deferring to someone else. Conformity is taking action to fit in with the norm, based usually on what you perceive that norm to be.

On another note, conformity is not always a blatant GAP makeover or whatever. Every little weird ass fringe group has its norms and, even absent membership in a group, we all shape ourselves to a degree to fit what we want others to think about us.

 

[00Syd]

Also, to say that conformity is only a submissive trait is BS, people with dominant personalities conform, too. Like I said before, a desire to conform doesn't make you "submissive," it makes you human. Everyone conformes to some degree.

 

[midwestyankee]

If conformity were strictly a consequence of being submissive, then you would only ever see one dom wearing leather, with a shaved head, or sporting a tattoo. And only one dom would ever wear black. All the rest, out of a biologically determined surge of autonomy, would select other colors for their wardrobe. A few might even pick shades of pink or mauve (concerning myself with males only here for the moment).

 

[night&day]

Look in the ...

There has been a ton written about women, clothing and success. It's not on topic here, but I happen to find it fascinating.

There's a book called, I think, Sex & Power, by Susan Estrich, a feminist law professor (also, I gather an insane pundit-type, but I liked her book all the same) in which there's this great quote that's something like - the perfect female employee is neither too attractive nor too ugly, married or attached but with no kids, dresses conservatively yet approachably (but not too approachably)...and it goes on. Anyway, dressing for success is tricky business, and dressing for political success as a woman is a complete minefield.

dictionary under C-U-N-T and you will find Nancy Pelosi's picture!

 

[Homburg]

If conformity were strictly a consequence of being submissive, then you would only ever see one dom wearing leather, with a shaved head, or sporting a tattoo. And only one dom would ever wear black. All the rest, out of a biologically determined surge of autonomy, would select other colors for their wardrobe. A few might even pick shades of pink or mauve (concerning myself with males only here for the moment).

This was my first thought, almost to a tee. All I could think of was the legion of dark slacks/jeans and leather vest wearing doms that I've seen at every event I've gone to.

 

[Sir Victor]

Seems there are many differing views on what it is to be submissive. I'd say there isn't an exact answer rather, it is just an underlying tendency. Some think that to be submissive is to have no will. I have met slaves who claim that this is their goal; to have their will completely broken. This concept is something that I find difficult to understand and even believe for real life. On the other hand it is fine when she plays a slave for me from time to time which is a fantasy many girls enjoy. The sub/slave difference has been discussed and argued on this forum and those threads might shed some light on the subject.

The type of girl that I prefer is a sub that chooses and prefers for me to take the lead in most things, but can take care of herself and is not helpless. I admire a girl who does think for herself and can offer engaging conversation. The ones that I'm most attracted to have a soft and gracious way about them.

As many have said, whatever works for a Dom and his girl. And I agree that conformity has nothing to do with being submissive or not.

 

[YourCaptor]

Well, that's insulting.

I didn’t mean to insult you. Conformity is just one of many characteristics, not every single one is required. I picked that particular one as an example because it is so visible.

Also, to say that conformity is only a submissive trait is BS, people with dominant personalities conform, too. Like I said before, a desire to conform doesn't make you "submissive," it makes you human. Everyone conformes to some degree.

Everyone submits to some degree.

 

[unregistered]