Dom and Sub and self-esteem.

[mcfbridge]

Something I'm curious about. Does one's dominant or submissive nature have to do with one's self-esteem.

Personally, I don't think I ever really feel submissive, but I do have both up and down times.

Does a person who wants to be submissive also have a low self-esteem. If that self-esteem increases, do they stay submissive.

Is it different between men and women.

And is the opposite true, do dominants have higher self-esteem, or is the dom actually hiding a low self-esteem through his/her love of power.

Personaly, I am dom and while I don't think of myself as God's gift to anyone, I don't have any real issues with who I am either?

Any opinions?

 

[Belegon]

1) welcome back old friend.

2) Although not really a part of that scene, I'm not so sure there is a direct correlation. The role of Dom may lead to the appearance of greater self-esteem, but self-valuation is very often one of those areas where looks can be deceiving. I can say that I know a few who define themselves as subs who do not seem to have any issues with self-esteem at all. As a matter of fact, I would say their self-esteem increased through the self-discovery involved in accepting the role.

 

[cfuhrer]

In my own personal instance I see no correlation at all.

I have what I would consider very good self esteem, boarderline egotism. In the "real world" I am unstoppable.

But in the bedroom there is nothing I love more than for my man to grab my hair and make me go down on him, or some other act of total and complete control over what I do to him and for him.

 

[Stella_Omega]

From my observations, I'd say- it depends. You bring your baggage with you, you know.

I've seen an insecure dom really harm an insecure sub, and I've seen very a self-confident sub achive some real magic with a new Dom.

When I was first figuring out what I wanted as a Top, I had a memorable session with a sub with too many issues... It was sucky, and it had nothing to do with the scene, it was her personality from the get-go.

 

[Purple Sage]

I don't think there's a direct correlation. For some, in either role, there's simply a good fit. For others, the roles are masks or attempts at compensation.

 

[mcfbridge]

From my observations, I'd say- it depends. You bring your baggage with you, you know.

I've seen an insecure dom really harm an insecure sub, and I've seen very a self-confident sub achive some real magic with a new Dom.

When I was first figuring out what I wanted as a Top, I had a memorable session with a sub with too many issues... It was sucky, and it had nothing to do with the scene, it was her personality from the get-go.

Interesting point and I think very important. I would guess than an insecure Dom could be dangerous. He/she would be so into proving his/her own self-worth, that they might overlook the well-being or even existence of the sub in their own power trip.

A confident dom on the other hand, knows that is the pleasure of both the dom and the sub that ultimately makes the encounter worthwhile.

 

[fieryjen]

My self esteem sure has had its high and low points, but I have never had any interest in being dominant even when it was at its highest. I would imagine that there's no simple correlation, although I imagine if you ask a switch, it may influence what they feel like at a particular moment (I'm speculating here). I have noticed that, even with my limited experience, a satisfying session will influence my self-esteem positively.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Interesting point and I think very important. I would guess than an insecure Dom could be dangerous. He/she would be so into proving his/her own self-worth, that they might overlook the well-being or even existence of the sub in their own power trip.

A confident dom on the other hand, knows that is the pleasure of both the dom and the sub that ultimately makes the encounter worthwhile.

It's actually a lesson that comes late for some tops!

That's one reason I like the community aspect of the current leather scene- or, at least, as I've experienced it, in the midwest- noseyparkers that keep their eye on newbies or newcomers. I have seen one case where the top was so abusive- as in wife-battery abusive- that onlookers took his "slave" away from him and brought her to the police station and stood by while she filed a complaint against him! AND supported her for the time it took her to extricate herself. It was a long commitment.
That was the worst I've seen. And again, the guy would have been abusive regardless of what he called himself. I would never assume that every man who topped was automatically going to be that abusive- geeze, think of all the fun I'd miss out on!

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Categorically no. There's no more correlation between self esteem and dominant-submissive behavior than there is between self-esteem and homosexuality, or love of big tits, or cowboy boots or white cotton panties.

It's true that a lot of people with low self-esteem gravitate to more passive or submissive roles in sex, and that more self-assertive and even arrogant people assume the roles of doms, but I would question whether this is even true sexual D/s behavior or just natural manifestations of personality type.

There are also a lot of simple misogynists and abusers who find it convenient to call themselves Doms, but what they do has little to do with real BDSM. They're just finding an excuse for their anger.

I tend to be a sexual dominant but I don't have particuarly high self-esteem. It's just that my sexuality comes out in a rather possessive, controling way. Similarly, all the subs I've been involved with had high self-esteem and were very accomplished women who just found special fulfillment in playing that particular role in the bedroom. I've never felt any attraction to a woman who wants to be treated like a door mat. They turn me off. It's like kicking a whipped dog. That's not D/s.

As best I can tell, the D/s dynamic inolves hard-wired mating behaviors involving aggression and passivity that some of us find particularly exciting and fulfilling, kind of like acting out caricatures of stereotypical male/female behavior. Self-esteem really has nothing to do with it.

When you come to sadism/masochism, that might be another story, but I'm not into that so I wouldn't know.

 

[rgraham666]

My first experience with the mindset of D/s was in Eric Fromme's book, Escape From Freedom. Being a somewhat of a Freudian, he couch it in terms of ego.

From Fromme's point of view, both sides had weak egos. The dominant reinforces theirs by absorbing the sub's and the sub is reinforced by being absorbed.

It isn't an entirely satisfying idea. Human psyches are too complex to be reduced to such simple analyses. But I think there is a grain of truth there.

I did get a good story out of the idea though.

Really, since D/s is a human sexual activity its reasons are myriad and we'll probably never understand it fully. Isn't that part of the fun?

 

[impressive]

I would imagine that there's no simple correlation, although I imagine if you ask a switch, it may influence what they feel like at a particular moment (I'm speculating here).

For me, it depends on the person I'm with -- not my mood at any given moment. My mood might influence whether I want it tough or tender, but not whether I top or bottom.

I can't bottom for someone I don't respect.

 

[sincerely_helene]

Really, since D/s is a human sexual activity its reasons are myriad and we'll probably never understand it fully.

That statement right there just clarified why people never seem to understand where I am coming from in conversations involving naturally dominant and submissive personas. I have never viewed it in a strictly sexual context.

 

[rgraham666]

I can't bottom for someone I don't respect.

Having thought about this for a lot recently, I don't think I'll ever be submissive in any way, shape or form. Every time I've been under another person's control, I've always been miserably unhappy.

I have trouble with the dominant role for the same reason. I don't want to be the person making someone else miserably unhappy.

Luckily, my ethical qualms don't keep me from writing about it.

 

[lil_elvis]

Never really gave it much thought. We are just having fun and it gets left in the bedroom once we venture outside. It doesn't pervade our relationship and aren't any esteem issues.

However, I can see McF's point about people with low self esteem/insecurity issues being drawn into dom/sub relationships to compensate for those problems. Abuse is still abuse no matter how it manifests itself.

 

[entitled]

Without reading any responses (sorry, folks, just not in the mood. Kiss off. ) i'll toss in my few cents' worth.

i'm a sub. Oh yes. But nowhere even NEAR half the people i know have enough self-confidence to top me. Why?

They're skeered of me. Not just scared, but SKEERED.

i know what i want. i know i will get it (eventually). They know that if they stand in my way they will get run over, knocked aside, or otherwise gotten rid of. Because i've learned how to do that i'm one of the most self-confident people you could run into. Not bragging, just saying.

Yes, i do whine and complain about some things, but it's just to remind myself of the why i'm doing something.

So... No, it has nothing to do with either being a PYL or a pyl. Self-confidence comes from the self. You have to be comfortable with yourself, no matter what your station, to be able to gain it in the first place.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

My slave has no apparent lack of confidence in herself. She is what most people expect of a redhead- passionate, and independent in most things. But she still loves to submit to me and has accepted that side of herself. It's like the CEOs or generals that like to be topped in the bedroom (including some of the moderate wing of feminists). In fact, there are a number of characters in certain of my stories that are VERY confident and have healthy egoes, but still like to submit. It's a fetish, and shouldn't regarded as any more indicative of self-esteem than any other fetish.

 

[rgraham666]

Been thinking more about this.

The book I mentioned earlier, Escape From Freedom, was mostly about why people fell, cheerfully, under the sway of people like Adolf Hitler.

Fromme's basic hypothesis was that people do it to give up responsibility. By passing authourity onto another, the responsibility for the success or failure of a person's actions passes as well. Guilt and shame become someone else's problem.

I've played on this theme in my BDSM stuff. The sub passes responsibility to the dom. So they can enjoy what they are doing without guilt or shame.

In my first, and in my opinion, my best BDSM piece, the sub was an extremely driven woman. She always had herself under tight control, always working towards her goal in life. To the detriment of everything else. She as almost anhedonic, unable to enjoy pleasure for fear it would hold her back.

When she submitted, it freed her to enjoy the things that her dom did to her.

It was surprising to me to discover this, that control could bring freedom of a sort.

It was the first time I realised that self esteem and D/s might not have anything to do with one another.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

When she submitted, it freed her to enjoy the things that her dom did to her.

It was surprising to me to discover this, that control could bring freedom of a sort.

It was the first time I realised that self esteem and D/s might not have anything to do with one another.

Now you're talking! That's getting close.

There are as many kinds of BDSM as there are practitioners, but I think most people have this stereotyped image of D/s based on humiliation: leading a sub around on a leash and making her drink out of a dog dish and lick her master's boots and things like that. Some people are into that kind of humiliation but not all of us are. I'll have nothing to do with it myself.

It's more about willing surrender than about being beaten into submission. The BDSM cliche about the ropes bringing freedom is true. It's very much about having the love and trust to give yourself to your lover and letting him take his pleasure of your body. It's a terribly close and intimate thing.

One interesting point: Washington DC has the highest concentration of Dommes per capita of any US city. Apparently, the power brokers in the capitol like to relax by being dommed, and these are probably not men with low self esteem for the most part. Personally, I think there are big differences in the dynamic between M/f and F/m BDSM, but still, I think that little factoid is significant.

Or maybe I just like to think of Dick Cheney in fishnet hose with a bridle in his mouth.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Now you're talking! That's getting close.

There are as many kinds of BDSM as there are practitioners, but I think most people have this stereotyped image of D/s based on humiliation: leading a sub around on a leash and making her drink out of a dog dish and lick her master's boots and things like that. Some people are into that kind of humiliation but not all of us are. I'll have nothing to do with it myself.

It's more about willing surrender than about being beaten into submission. The BDSM cliche about the ropes bringing freedom is true. It's very much about having the love and trust to give yourself to your lover and letting him take his pleasure of your body. It's a terribly close and intimate thing.

One interesting point: Washington DC has the highest concentration of Dommes per capita of any US city. Apparently, the power brokers in the capitol like to relax by being dommed, and these are probably not men with low self esteem for the most part. Personally, I think there are big differences in the dynamic between M/f and F/m BDSM, but still, I think that little factoid is significant.

Or maybe I just like to think of Dick Cheney in fishnet hose with a bridle in his mouth.

That image cracks me up. Is Lynne holding a whip? ROTFLMAO

 

[rgraham666]

I'm remembering a little factoid from the Ward/Profumo scandal.

Apparently, some minister of the government at the time, liked to serve drinks at parties. He would be dressed in a hood, a leather apron, stilletto heels and a sign that read 'If I don't serve you prettily, please beat me'.



I do wonder about our species sometimes.

 

[CharleyH]

Something I'm curious about. Does one's dominant or submissive nature have to do with one's self-esteem.

Personally, I don't think I ever really feel submissive, but I do have both up and down times.

Does a person who wants to be submissive also have a low self-esteem. If that self-esteem increases, do they stay submissive.

Is it different between men and women.

And is the opposite true, do dominants have higher self-esteem, or is the dom actually hiding a low self-esteem through his/her love of power.

Personaly, I am dom and while I don't think of myself as God's gift to anyone, I don't have any real issues with who I am either?

Any opinions?

This is a good question. I personally have a beautiful person to banter it. Good luck on Lit.

 

[NoJo]

My one and only visit to a professional dominatrix happened during a time when I was feeling confident and strong. In fact, it was mainly because I felt so in control that I felt the need to be submissive, to reliquish that control.

In my experience submissive people are often controlling personailities in "real life".

I sympathise with Rob for wishing he could opt out of the d/s power games involved in relationships, because of the potential for abusive behaviour, but I think that such a relationship, if it exists, would pall very quickly without the frisson of power games.

 

[rgraham666]

As long as they are admittedly games, are, as games should be, strictly for amusement and do not impact on the regard people have for each other, I have no problems with games.

If the unspoken, or sometimes spoken, assumption is, "One of us is going to rule this relationship and it's not going to be you", then I have problems. Big problems.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

I'm too damned lazy to be dominant, and too independent to be submissive...

 

[NoJo]

I'm too damned lazy to be dominant, and too independent to be submissive...

I guess that leaves wanking then...