Natural Dominant; Natural Submissive; do they exist? are they exemplars?

[Pure]

Natural Dominant; Natural Submissive; do they exist? are they exemplars**?

This thread is inspired by some of the remarks of Francisco, below, about 'natural dom/mes'. That is to say, a person 'born that way'; dominant by his/her essence from the get-go.

Netzach's position, in the topspace thread, is the opposing one: topping is 'play', it's 'acted,' not in any bad or attenuated sense; we try out life roles. We change them.

Some of CF's themes reflect the view of the internal enslavement folks (subgroup of bdsm people).

It's not so much my argument over 'did you feel that way from birth?' I accept that a number of gays, and particular perverts, including sadists and dom/mes and tops feel that way.

More interesting is the claim that--in my words-- these people are exemplars: if you 'have it' from birth, you are the 'prime example', the most domly of doms; also the one with the deepest experiences and understandings in virtue of one's pure, innate, domly essence which expresses itself so, as a matter of necessity.

**[Added: If you don't like the term 'exemplars', one can reformulate the claim in terms of 'natural masters' being the paradigmatic cases of domination; or in simpler term, the most through-and-through domly of dom/mes. This is not a value judgment: asserting that the French revolution is a paradigm case of revolution--while the American is not--is not to say it's the best revolution or that others are bad, defective, or ill-begotten events.]

If all this sounds like 'blue blood', well it's like that, and you see it in the Aristotle quotation Francisco supplied. Some people--men--says Aristotle-- are natural masters; others--women--are natural subordinates. The natural masters can and should 'take charge' since they--these guys-- have an abundance of the 'rational principle', whereas women just have a touch, and slave have none at all.

Aristotle, in talking of 'natural superiority' did get a bit sloppy as to facts: Betrand Russell said,

Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths.

There's a nice link to Aristotle material on men, women, slaves, etc. at http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xari.htm

Without going on too long, the problem, it becomes clear, isn't so much the claim that there's a natural hierarchy, it's in saying "I know I --or they-- belong on top. And this is why: I have these-ad-these characteristics and capabilities and you don't. "

Francisco, although you say you don't agree completely with Aristotle, you present him as relevant to your claim there are natural doms. What about these folks--are they all men, by the way-- makes them deservedly masters of others? Do you agree with Aristotle that it's in having a more generous helping of reason?

Best,
Pure.

[ADDED: 2:27 pm edt: I accept Catalina's statement that you don't agree with Aristotles views of women, and the above posting did distinguish your views from Aristotles, as per your posting. Please ignore the clarifying question 'are they all men, by the way?', since it's clear, on Catalina's word, that you say 'no.']



Catalina Francisco, remarks:

5-26 topspace

Dominance and submission are not something that has to be understood, so to speak, to be expressed. It is something inside you that is as natural and necessary as breathing, not something that needs to be ‘acted out’. [...]

I can not become a submissive like a submissive can not become a dominant. The two states are at extreme opposites of the spectrum and to suggest someone who can change from one to the other is more effective in both roles suggests more a playacting scenario than a direct expression of one’s innate characteristics. [...]


I, being a Dominant and not a top, would never ever let someone else control me. I would never give control over myself to another; I would never give someone power over me. To do that would be to deny the dominance which is an integral part of me.
========

5-28 topspace CF

Going back to the subject of being an innate slave or dominant more widely known as the Natural Slave or Natural dominant, it is a very old discussion point. We can go as far back as Aristotle to find the first documented analyses

{Aristotle:}The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then they are preserved.

Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature.
Aristotle, Politics, 1.V (translation by Benjamin Jowett)

Not that I agree with his views, just an example that innate capabilities of dominance/submission is an very old discussion point and not just something I have plucked out of thin air.

But to be honest, there is no real proof about being a Natural dominant or an innate Dom, at least as far as I know of. I know I am a Natural Dominant. I know in it in every fiber of my being. In my professional life I lead a small team of very highly technical persons. I used to lead a group of about 150 technicians. In my personal life my friends always come to me for advice. Yes I feel that I am a natural leader and a natural dominant person.

 

[catalina_francisco]

The Aristotle quote was inserted with disclaimer and clearly stated as an example of how long this discussion has existed, NOT EVER as the way he/we/I think and feel.

I am highly respected in academic and work related fields as a strong, often radical and out spoken Feminist and I can assure you I have never been the subject of disrespect or abuse from him because of my gender, nor have any other women I have known him to have contact with. In fact he thinks highly of women and treats them as equals in all facets of life. My being his slave does not mean I, or any woman is inferior. It is my choice to accept his offer to collar me for life as his.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

First I am going to start by copying my original answer, for the completeness of this discussion.


I will answer later, more in full the remarks of Pure.

------------------------------------------------

Some interesting points have been brought up which probably deserve a more in depth answer than my poor intellectual capabilities are capable of. However that does not stop me in trying of course.

by Pure
Many characteristics are commonly said to be innate, like intelligence, but the fact is that measures of it (IQ tests) CAN be prepared for, and scores improved.

The fact that you can fine tune certain innate characteristics does not mean they are not innate. It is a documented fact that social, cultural, and environmental influences can have an impact on intelligence, but the reality is there has to be a particular level of intelligence present in a person to allow them to develop it to higher levels. However even nowadays Science is still not sure how intelligence occurs and how in reality it is developed.

If I may give a reference to an interesting article about just this subject.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20...trunc_sys.shtml

by Pure
But in any case, other analogies might fit equally well. I'm no sports archivist, but I'm sure it's easy to find someone who was 'world class' in one event, but who 'switched' and became 'world class' in another event or even sport. This is as we should expect, since I don't see any evidence that 'batsman ability is something that's 'innate'. (which is not to deny that _some_ great batsmen showed a knack for it, since their childhood games.)


There are many examples of sportsman changing from one side of the game to another and succeeding or excelling in it. Babe Ruth used to be a pitcher before becoming on of the most known batsman in Baseball. But you see he used to be a very average pitcher, it was once he found his true talent in the sport that he excelled and changed the face of Baseball forever.

by Pure
I'm not sure if you're making the further claim that that's the paradigm for devt of a dom/me, but if so, you'd have to give evidence, and explain all the cases of 'subs' turning into 'dommes' .

In fact in science it is generally accepted that every rule, every measurement you take has flaws and exceptions in it, it is a statistical law.

If I might make a bad translation of a Dutch saying:
That's the exception rather than the rule

However having said that, there is no conflict between my statement and the fact that there are dominants out there who have been submissive. There could be several reasons for such a change. They might have repressed their true nature and only later in life realized what their true path in life was, simply have been exploring to find their true nature, trying to please someone they were in a relationship with, or they might be switches, or maybe they are players in the scene.


by Pure
The question comes up, what is your evidence? Shall we look at books and novels about dom and sub, and see if the authors 'understand' deeply? and if so are they exclusively dom/me? What method do you use to support such a claim?**

As you might have guessed by now my views come very close to those of people represented by the internal enslavement or those who believe in total power exchange. Most, but not all of my own convictions come out of that stream, or using a ‘Netzach word’, subculture inside BDSM.

I do not claim that my truth is the only truth out there; it is the truth as I see it for me. The method I use is that one of logical reasoning based on my own views. There are books about BDSM which I find to be extremely good to read and very educational. Some of those I do not agree with and with some I do, but with most of them there are parts I find extremely interesting and can relate fully and with other parts I cannot. This is how I approach any subject. I read several points of view, I discuss several viewpoints and then I make my own conclusions and follow my own thread of understanding. I am an individual by nature and tend to make my own ideology instead of following others for the sake of feeling comfortable in the crowd.

Going back to the subject of being an innate slave or dominant more widely known as the Natural Slave or Natural dominant, it is a very old discussion point. We can go as far back as Aristotle to find the first documented analyses

The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.
Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature.
Aristotle, Politics, 1.V (translation by Benjamin Jowett)

Not that I agree with his views, just an example that innate capabilities of dominance/submission is an very old discussion point and not just something I have plucked out of thin air.

But to be honest, there is no real proof about being a Natural dominant or an innate Dom, at least as far as I know of. I know I am a Natural Dominant. I know in it in every fiber of my being. In my professional life I lead a small team of very highly technical persons. I used to lead a group of about 150 technicians. In my personal life my friends always come to me for advice. Yes I feel that I am a natural leader and a natural dominant person.

In considering _understanding_ you neglect the role of imagination. Since you have recommended Story of O to learn about domination, I would point out it's evidence againstyour thesis about having to be a true, innate dom/me or sub to understand in depth. The book was written by a woman who, so far as publically known, was pretty 'vanilla.' She drew upon religious writings, and was almost certainly not a fulltime sub. Sade's works too count against your claims, but maybe I'll take that up later.

I must admit that by choosing these two popular works, I have made a mistake. Although we could argue about Sade’s work, the story of O is completely misplaced to defend my viewpoint.

by Netzach
I'm a working artist, art is not less real nor more real than the world, it's a model for *viewing* and understanding the world. It's a lens, much as, well...game theory, or Judaism, or, in my personal opinion...SM can be.

My own viewpoint comes out of a completely different view on the world. I live in a cold scientific mathematical world where everything that takes place has it place in the order of the universe.

by Netzach
simply because I am playing tennis badly, for pleasure, we don't call what I am doing "riding a pony" or "deluding myself into thinking I am playing tennis" I am still playing tennis.

I fully agree you would still be playing tennis just not on the same level as a professional tennis player would. This again reinforces my point.

 

[Pure]

Hi Catalina and Francisco,

I appreciate your efforts to clarify and maybe it will be useful to some to have a more compete record, here.

I simply ask that you understand that any excerpt or summary cannot refer to all the nuances and details of a position

I've been an editor of scholarly material for more than ten years, and try to be concise _and__ do justice to a position

Where issues are unclear, or where the summary shows misunderstanding, I hope the discussion will improve things and help enlighten all of us.

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Pure,

I have the highest regard for your postings and your views and your masterful control of this very difficult language.

Francisco.

 

[Bachlum Chaam]

I found this thread interesting whereas all the more clever people than I can expound on their theories very eloquently I would like to put my own take on it if you would bear with me please.

I have always been dominant in everything, I do not think I am any form of blue blood type, in truth more agricultural. My dominant side was in everything in life from work through all of my life, superior to anyone no! I wouldn't have what it takes to be a sub in anything in my life too dificult for my liking.

Forgive me, like my writing my thoughts are chaotic and drivel for the most part

 

[SilkVelvet]

As someone who has only recently learned that needs I have always had are in fact labelled submissive, I am reading as much as I can (and talking to people too) to gain as many viewpoints as possible, to better understand this new world I have discovered to be relevant and integral to my own life and future.

In my opinion, the way to ascertain whether someone is a Natural Dominant or Natural Submissive, is to apply a universally or widely accepted psychological test which will give an accurate representation of the individual's personality.

Not to quote the opinions of long dead Greek playwright philosophers or pieces of fiction, surely ?

I am somewhat confused by the question posed by this thread, I admit. That there are people within a population who are naturally dominant or submissive is a given. But in asking whether these people should be exemplars to other dominants and submissives is surely also implying that anyone deemed to be a NATURAL Dominant or Submissive (and by what criteria ?) is in someway superior to others.

I am bisexual and I accept myself as so. In a psychological test my brain was proven to work in a way which was bisexual ie neither typically male nor typically female. Does that make me a purer bisexual or a superior one to other bisexuals with brains more typically male or female ? Of course not. Should I regard myself as an example to other bisexuals ? Of course not.

So why pose the question for any other reason than to try and establish a hierachy?

Velvet

PS : I would like to point out that I am only disagreeing with the opinions presented, which are of course every bit as valid as my own, and that I am not meaning to be in any way offensive to anyone

 

[Bachlum Chaam]

I was asked to expand on my life before now, I am in a vanilla marriage which is and has been useless. Within the last 7 years I have had heart trouble.

So with that happening I have stopped living as others want me too purely because I am to old to care what others think. So now I am deciding my own path now

 

[Pure]

Hi Silk,

Thanks for your posting.
If I may clarify--there only so many word one can put in a title.

you said,

//I am somewhat confused by the question posed by this thread, I admit. That there are people within a population who are naturally dominant or submissive is a given. But in asking whether these people should be exemplars to other dominants and submissives is surely also implying that anyone deemed to be a NATURAL Dominant or Submissive (and by what criteria ?) is in someway superior to others. //

We're not talking about whether one person is a better person or superior, as a person, to other. Nor, did I wish to suggest that the issue if whether the 'natural dom' is a superior person to the 'natural sub' or to the 'dom-on-Saturday-nights-only.'

As I understand Francisco, and he speaks on behalf of a common view, the claim is that (interpersonal) dominance is understood best, and experienced most fully by the 'natural dom/me' who has 'come out' and expressed his or her inherent nature .

Since 'dom(me)liness' is of this person's essence, he or she is bound to understand it--in the bones, as it were-- better than one who simply 'tries out the role' from time to time, or who 'switches.' In my terms, we might say the person is 'exemplary' -- the most suitable example-- in his or her domliness.

Using an analogy of my own, suggested by Francisco, it you want, as an American, to understand the "Black" (American) experience, learning from someone who's had it, talk to someone who looked, was considered, and was 'Black' from birth; do NOT ask someone who's very light (i.e., can be taken for either), and who could and did pass for 'white' for large periods of his or her early life: they simply do not have the full depth of understanding of the Black experience, since they can 'dip into it' but also depart from it. This Black person, of course, is not, as a person, of any greater or less value than the lighter one, nor is the former's life necessarily of greater interest than the latter.

I'm sure Francisco will clarify any misunderstanding evidenced by these remarks.

Best,

J.

 

[Bachlum Chaam]

Pure your message box is full

 

[catalina_francisco]

Let me start by stating that I have the highest esteem and respect for women. I do not claim, nor will I ever claim that men are superior to women. If I were submissive I would gladly throw myself at the mercy of a female dominant and hope she would have no mercy with me, whipping the flesh of my bones.

I have been a Dominant all of my life, from earliest memories in childhood to my life as I live it 24/7 today. Whenever in a group I have always tried to lead it, and whenever there was another dominant person in the group I have tried to gain leadership. Not to say that this is a redeeming quality, just to state my character.

It has taken me many years to accept who and what I am. I have been brought up in a strange mixture of anarchism and Roman Catholics. Being that one of my parents was a committed and politicly active anarchist and the other a devout Roman Catholic. This mixture of being completely in favour of personal freedom and following the bible made it very hard, almost impossible for me to accept who I was, and still am. Although we often hear about the journey of acceptance for the submissive, we hear little about the journey of the dominant. What makes us tick, why we become who and what we do?

Is it only our sadism that makes us tick and lets us become the master over someone else’s life, or is it something deeper, something that compels us to take control. I cannot answer that question for anyone else but myself, but for me there was no other way. It was a deep primal instinct that compelled me to take the road that I took.

For many years I have tried to convince myself that I was not sick and perverted, that I could control my fantasies. I have been in several relationships and found them to be completely unsatisfactory. It was only after coming in contact with other people who thought likewise that I was able to accept my role in life.

I came into contact with a female dominant who for a short period in my life was my mentor. She, like many in this lifestyle, tried to convince me that the road towards dominance was through submission. I can calmly state that for me this was not so. I have made the effort and tried to accept her dominating me, but it was impossible as it was the complete opposite of who I am. I cannot be dominated simply because I hate being dominated. It does nothing for me but degrade me. I find no pleasure in it, no ‘kick’, if anything quite the contrary.

However that did not change the fact that I still had very strong dominant feelings, and with the help of the same female dominant I was able to grow with her guidance to what I consider to be a strong, male dominant.

It is my belief there are more like me out there, men and women, who simply can not be dominated. They are by nature dominant and cannot relinquish control of themselves over to another. This view reflects my knowledge based on the experiences I have had, and the discussions I have participated in throughout the years with like minded people. Perhaps others might have had different experiences, but that is for them to speak of.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

So with that happening I have stopped living as others want me too purely because I am to old to care what others think. So now I am deciding my own path now

Good for you mate, I wish you strength and wisdom in your path.

May the force be with you.
Francisco.

 

[SilkVelvet]

Thanks to Pure for clarifying and to Francisco for your personal story, so well told. I will think on what you have both posted and hope that should I have further questions I may ask them ?

best wishes Velvet

 

[catalina_francisco]

Any questions you might have I will gladly answer.

 

[Pure]

Fascinating story, Francisco.

pure

 

[catalina_francisco]

Thanks Pure....and that's just the short edited version.

by pure
Using an analogy of my own, suggested by Francisco, it you want, as an American, to understand the "Black" (American) experience, learning from someone who's had it, talk to someone who looked, was considered, and was 'Black' from birth; do NOT ask someone who's very light (i.e., can be taken for either), and who could and did pass for 'white' for large periods of his or her early life: they simply do not have the full depth of understanding of the Black experience, since they can 'dip into out' but also depart from it. This Black person, of course, is not, as a person, of any greater or less value than the lighter one, nor is the former's life necessarily of greater interest than the latter.

I have made two statements, the first that there are natural born Dominants, and that they have a deeper understanding of dominance than those who are not natural born dominants.

A switch is capable of being both submissive and dominant and will probably better understand the needs of a submissive then a dominant does; likewise a switch will be capable to understand the needs of a dominant better then a submissive will. This to some indicates that a switch has a better understanding of dominance and submission then a dominant or submissive respectively.

I will agree that a switch will have a broader understanding of BDSM, understanding parts of the two extremes better than either of the extremes can. However, I believe they can not reach the same level of understanding of dominance or submissiveness that a natural born submissive or natural born dominant can. Why you will ask, what is your proof?

I will concentrate on the dominant side since I am a dominant. A natural Dominant is dominant by nature, has experienced the need to be dominant since earliest memories whether they have successfully suppressed it or not for any length of time for whatever reason, most likely for reasons they do not always fully understand themselves; the reality in the end for them is they cannot be something else, they must be dominant or forever suffer the frustrations and disappointment of not living a life which will fulfil their needs. Dominance is an integral part of them. Yes, they may find they will need to study and understand the reasons and the motivations for what they do automatically by nature, but he already knows what it is. Without analysing this I believe they can never reach their full potential. If a Dominant does not understand themselves and know themselves inside out, how can they ever hope to guide and nurture a submissive who entrusts themselves to their care and protection.

I believe natural Dominants know how to dominate as it is genetically a part of them as much as hair colour, facial features etc. Isn’t it common to recognise character traits in family members which resemble those of a different generation? Studies have also proven these behavioural and character traits still exist and manifest in genetically connected people who through adoption have never had any knowledge of or direct contact with other family members from whom they can model their behaviours. Why should dominance be any different than say someone who is shy and introverted like their sister, grandparent, or uncle may have been? Yes they may need to work on refining the dominant characteristics and the way they use them in reality, and yes they need to study and understand themselves, especially to understand what they are doing and be able to control the level of their dominant behaviour to ensure the safety and well being of their submissive, but the bottom line is the basics are there to be built upon and developed to a fine skill..

Never forget to be able to control a submissive a dominant should first be able to control himself.

Francisco.
With a lot of help from my beautiful slave Catalina

 

[RisiaSkye]

caveat: this one's a behemoth. Read at your own risk (of narcolepsy)

Interesting discussion.

My caveat to the whole convo (and the ideological debate behind it) is this:
In the final analysis, labels are just words we use to pigeonhole others and try to fit them into our own view of how the world works. And labels encourage fragmentation rather than coalition building, so they're often inimicable to the building of wide communities. I've often wondered if this accounts for the relative racial segregation of the scene, as well as the tendency for distance between gay/lesbian leather folks and the straights.

Labels are, by their very nature, fundamentally incapable of expressing ambivalence, evolving persona/identity construction, and the enormous multiplicity of factors which comprise a person's understanding of themself and their role(s) in the world. So, it should come as no surprise that taking them too seriously seems to only lead toward destructive impulses (discrimination via the various -isms and -phobias, establishment of exploitive and nonconsensual hierarchies such as literal historical enslavement, etc.). I am fundamentally skeptical of anyone who attaches overmuch importance on the labels used to describe their experience and understanding of the world. To me, this is indicative of some deeply undesirable character traits--like rigidity and arrogance.

For what it's worth, a few additional thoughts:

On "natural" Dominance and submission:
First, trying to pinpoint the time frame in which one first held and expressed Dominant or submissive tendencies is rather like trying to solve the Chicken or Egg mind-game--it's a purely abstracted question. Any attempt to read back into our childhood is inherently inflected by our current experience, and our current understanding of who we are in the world. Thus, when I look back at my childhood, based on who I know myself to be today, my most vivid memories are typically those which express (and confirm the longevity--even "naturalness" of) my adult identity. In my experience, this is utterly typical thought modeling.

Second, I find it easy to accept that there are people who naturally (taken to mean that they do it early in life, with or without an awareness of others' BDSM realities and/or the language in which to express their interior relationship to power) gravitate toward one end or the other of the power exchange spectrum, and that these people might be termed "natural" Dominants or submissives. But, so what? It's just terminology, and in the end, it really tells you very little--other than that most people who use the term "natural" ____ do so to apply it to themselves, and then usually as a way-station on the way to expressing some version of a (sometimes implied rather than explicit) hierarchy--one which always locates themselves at the top of the organizational scheme of BDSMers. What a coincidence, eh?

And the holes in this way of thinking don't begin and end with the difficulty of pinpointing the origins of sexual identity. For instance, there are many people who find BDSM in adulthood, and experience a feeling of finally finding a language in which to articulate nebulously defined but long-present feelings about who they are and how they relate to others in their lives. Are these people "natural" D/s-ers? Why or why not?

At what point in one's life experience must it be expressed in order for it to count as "natural?"
If one has always gravitated to leadership positions and other roles expressive of Dominance, does that make one a "natural Dominant" when it comes to sexuality and lifestyle models? What if one has simultaneously been drawn to sexual submission since one's first sexual experience? Natural sub or Natural Dominant? And who gets to decide these things?

On exemplars, self-awareness and "true" Dominance
The short answer would be "bullshit." But, in the interest of discourse, here's the longer version.

This debate exists all over the place. Butch or femme--which is more "legitimate" lesbianism? Daddy or queen? Straight or gay?--and what the hell do we make of bisexuals? And, of course, Dominant or submissive? Natural or learned? Lifestyler or role-player? Dominant, Top, or Master/Mistress? sub, bottom, slave? And where do we put the switches? And that's just out here in fringe sexuality. It all comes down to the idea of authenticity and a set of personal judgment calls and priorities about what it means to know oneself, express one's personality honestly, and work toward doing so in a way which helps to shape the world into one more of one's liking.

The idea that there is a right or better or more self aware or more true (etc., et al) way to experience and understand Dominance (or submission, but I'm trying to stick to the main gist of the thread) exposes some pretty big assumptions and more than a little willingness to judge others based solely on one's own criteria. To me, that makes about as much sense as citing the Bible to an atheist. Given that, in order to do this BDSM thing at all without driving ourselves crazy, one typically has to operate outside the cultural (familial, religious, etc.) definitions of what constitutes "true" or "appropriate" sexuality/sexual expression, I find it doubly bizarre that we would then move to reinstitute definitions of propriety and an intra-community hierarchy based on how people live out those characteristics which comprise their BDSM selves.

To me, for me, the very idea of "exemplary" models of Dominance and submission is profoundly and utterly beside the fucking point--on all levels. I see no utility in this formulation, other than as a mechanism to reintroduce artificial hierarchies into a politically egalitarian community. And where's the fun in that?

Men, women, and the old biological imperative justification for nonconsensual subjection:
There's a reason you can find evidence of this debate dating back to some (if not most/all) of the earliest recorded histories of human society-building--and there are a lot of reasons the debate still rages in many forms, but will remain perpetually unresolved. I have no delusions that I will (or even could) sway anyone on this one, but I'm opinionated and bored, so fuck it. Here's my view. As Eb would say, YMMV.

There may very well be trends based on gender, race, etc. Certainly, my own experience of the BDSM world suggests that there's a relative paucity of straight FemDoms--at least compared to the (growing) number of straight msubs. On the other hand, gods know there's no shortage of hetero MDoms and fsubs running around on the loose. However, trends are not laws. This isn't a math equation, it's human nature. Exceptions ARE the rule. Individuality is worth prizing, imo, even when it's inconvenient to one's preconceptions.

Not to mention that the existence of trends does not account for the creation and perpetuation of them. If, for example, women represent a larger portion of the submissive population than do men--which would read as supporting the idea that women *tend* to gravitate toward submission more readily than Dominance--this still doesn't explain WHY that's the case. Is it nature, or is it nurture? Does culture equate femininity with docility due to the prevalence of this correlation in nature, or do we naturalize the differences and inequities we create through our cultures?

Also, the M/F Dominance debate has historically tended to have serious political, social, and physical ramifications. In other words, the idea of gendered trends has not only been extended into a stereotype which purports to represent reality, it has been used as the justification for subjection, enslavement, and oppression of distinctly unsexy, nonconsensual, and often actively evil types. Even if one is willing to accept that there are gendered trends in relative levels of Dominance and submission, (or racial trends in intelligence, a la Bell Curve, or whatever--insert identity category and comparative hierarchy of measurement here), using these trends as the basis for sweeping statements and/or the formation of stereotypes can lead to dangerous places. For example, if someone said to me--in all seriousness--"women are naturally submissive and inferior to men," I would probably look at them like they were nuts. Then, depending upon our rapport and whether or not they were an asshole about it, we might debate the idea just for grins. But, the fundamental difference in worldview doesn't hold any real consequences for either side. However, if a political leader says it--like say, some Euro painter type says "Jews, queers, whores, and gypsies are naturally inferior to we groovy gringos. Times are tight, they're holding us back, and we don't need them anymore, it's time to thin the human herd for the good of all" then you get very real consequences--like a Holocaust.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to compare possibly misguided but harmless dick swinging bravado with a horror like the Holocaust. But, as any good debater will tell you, a slippery slope is a dangerous place to stand.

Difference (such as between men and women, Dom/mes and subs, Blacks and whites and Asians, whatever) does not equate to assumed subordination on its own. *WE* make that happen, by using the fact of difference(s) between people(s) as an excuse to abuse and dehumanize each other. And that's when you get a fucked up superstructure--resulting in things like slavery. Or, hell, like the fact that women have had the vote for less than a hundred years in the U.S. I mean, really. Think on that, ladies, and see if you really feel comfortable blurring the line between *human difference* and *institutional hierarchy.*

On Switching and "deeper" Dominance:
Two quotes which unintentionally expose the illusion, lifted from Francisco's post--

Francisco, I don't know you and you don't know me, so let me preface this by saying hello and telling you that I've enjoyed reading your thoughts, as well as those of your mate. Know in advance that while I sometimes tend toward purple prose and bouts of ineloquent swearing, it's directed at ideas rather than people. I don't even know you, so I certainly don't dislike you.

...a switch ... can not reach the same level of understanding of dominance or submissiveness that a natural born submissive or natural born dominant can...

... A natural Dominant is dominant by nature, has experienced the need to be dominant since earliest memories whether they have successfully suppressed it or not ...the reality in the end for them is they cannot be something else, they must be dominant or forever suffer the frustrations and disappointment of not living a life which will fulfil their needs. Dominance is an integral part of them.

Never forget to be able to control a submissive a dominant should first be able to control himself.

If the barometer for measuring the depth of Dominance is self-awareness and ability to control one's sphere--starting with control over one's self and expanding outward from there into one's relationships--would a Natural Dominant actually be less able to understand?

Here's a for-instance to illustrate my point: Let's say I'm "naturally Dominant" but cho/ose to experience submission (not 24/7 TPE, but well more than conditional acquiescence) in order to more fully understand my own identity construction, the duality of the power exchange, submissive responses and needs, the community, etc. And, in making that choice and committing to it, let's further say that I possess sufficient self-awareness and control to also choose to find pleasure in it, by exploring it until "clicked" and I hit my groove on the flip side of my usual power dynamic. If mastery of self is always the foundation of truly understanding/experiencing Dominance, wouldn't that make me (in the hypothetical case above), then doesn't that mean I would actually have achieved a far greater self mastery--and therefore a far deeper understanding of Dominance than is typical for one who started and ended in the same power dynamic, never trying to figure out how they got there, why they're drawn to it, or what the other side looks like when you're in it?

One final thought, and I'll stop rambling. This time, a direct response.

It is my belief there are more like me out there, men and women, who simply can not be dominated. They are by nature dominant and cannot relinquish control of themselves over to another. This view reflects my knowledge based on the experiences I have had, and the discussions I have participated in throughout the years with like minded people. Perhaps others might have had different experiences, but that is for them to speak of.

Francisco.

First, there's a big difference between an inability and/or unwillingness to relinquish control and possession of some innately indomitable magic mojo. (Those who "simply can not [sic] be dominated," in your formulation) While one whose Dominance runs to the core of their self-perception and worldview might never willingly surrender control, and might even risk everything--including death--to preserve their personal power, that doesn't really mean that they cannot be dominated, only that they refuse to be. And, taken to extreme circumstances, that might not even hold up. For one thing, it's practically impossible to actually know how one would behave if placed in truly extraordinary circumstances (say, 27 years in prison like Mandela; or, if you prefer, choosing to be pressed to death rather than give up a powerful piece of info, like William Wallace) especially if it were over a protracted timeline. Conditions, particularly prolonged ones, have a way of dramatically altering one's worldview. And survival instincts are a bitch to fight long-term.

But beyond that, and more importantly, it's simply not true at all, even without using the extreme possibilities of subjection and coercion as the model. I'll show you what I mean.

*Ever had a job interview or other nominally social circumstance where you molded yourself to the perceived expectations of the other party/ies in order to achieve your ends? (get the job, etc.)
*Ever had a boss and/or followed an order?
*Do you obey laws you disagree with rather than face the potential punishment?
*Do you accept the curtailment of your freedom to choose in the interests of safety? For instance--do you wear a seatbelt? If so, are you more or less likely to do so now that there are government regulations mandating that you can be punished for nothing more than not doing so?
*If you're American and went to college, did you register for Selective Service?
*Have you ever travelled to another country and passed through Customs? Did you answer the questions honestly? Let them look through your bags if they demanded it?
*Do you or have you ever paid taxes?
*Do you answer your telephone before checking to see who's on the line and deciding whether or not you want to speak with them?
*Do you have a driver's license, register your vehicle, and carry insurance?
*If a police officer told you to put your hands on your head and kneel on the sidewalk, and you knew you'd done nothing wrong (or at least, not anything illegal that could be traced to you), would you do it?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, then you've already experienced being Dominated. And, based on the questions themselves, in all likelihood, you've chosen to submit to it, rather than face the uphill battle of continual power struggle against government/business/local culture, etc.--a battle which, incidentally, you're all but guaranteed to lose if it really comes down to it and "they" decide you're a sufficiently pesky nuisance to merit active suppression.

My point is this: one can feel--truly, honestly, to the depths of one's being--the call to Dominance in a BDSM context, as well as the wide variety of other readily available negotiable power relations. That attraction to Dominance, however, is predicated upon willing submissive participating in that exchange with you and validating your self-identity by their eager embrace of it. If nobody was willing to submit to you, your desire to retain control would say precious little about your real power--the amount of control you can actually wield in any arena of your life without the compliance of others.

In some areas, like your personal living space, probably a great deal; anyone can be Master of the house, so long as they're willing to live alone. In other areas, such as work, Dominance--whether taken to mean "natural" control freakishness/bossiness or possessing the official mantle of authority (being "the boss") means little to nothing on its own. I don't know about you, but I've had plenty of bosses that I just completely shined on because they were incompetent, or a pain in the ass, or whatever. Those people had very little real control over me--in the end, their only recourse was to accept my subversion of their authority (let me "Top from below") or fire me (punishment culminating in ending the power exchange). That's a pretty thin coating of control, from where I sit.

Which brings me to my other (and, mercifully, last) point on the subject: No matter how Dominant one knows oneself to be, unless one becomes Master of the world--in other words, God or some non-theistic analog for the idea of supreme and incontestable power--one is always subordinated to at least one power structure, Dominated by at least one force stronger than self, limited by the very fabric of social interaction. That's the nature of the beast.

~~~~~
Wow, that was a long ramble. Apparently, I now go away for months at a time, then jump in with a whole freaking essay about something, then vanish again. Ah, well.

To anyone who made it this far: bravery and fortitude deserve rewards, so here--

And to familiar faces long unseen: a warm hello. I hope you're well.

Take care,
RS
Bisexual ND/switch and erstwhile producer of brain-meltingly dense board posts

copy-edited

 

[SilkVelvet]

Awesome

 

[incubus_dark]

I'm glad I didn't major in psychology, interesting though it is; if you can't blast it with an electron microprobe and determine exactly what it is, it seems you're doomed to argue about it for ever (note to self: try microprobe on my sub).

RisiaSkye, you're on dangerous ground with all that common sense. Didn't they used to burn people for that? Some nice points, thank you.

I'm a dom and have knowingly been so since I was about 17, where fortuitous circumstances passed me an experienced sub who gifted me with the knowledge that it was alright to be what I apparently was and am. I'm truly appreciative of this introduction into the BDSM lifestyle now more than ever I was at the time, having heard the experiences of Fransisco and others like him.

I consider that what I am is a product of both genetic predisposition (to an unknown and possibly unknowable extent) as well as the effects of my formative environment. I have experimented with taking the role of sub and put a modest effort into it. I don't enjoy it and that, I think, is the clincher. Any dom can sub, but I find it unatural and at odds with my desires and my persona. There is no way I can let go and 'get into it'; the best I can manage is to grit my teeth and accept it with poor grace for a short period (and here I'm talking in relation to a BDSM dynamic rather than the power structures of the world at large).

Does this make me a natural dom? Well I'm certainly not synthetic (though I have occasionally been gamma irradiated), but really, it seems unimportant. It certainly doesn't make me some form of exemplar of domhood. So, what does constitute an exemplar of domliness? In my opinion (which is rarely humble) this would be the confidant, calm, self posessed and self assured dom with manners, imagination, self control, style, flair and probably a host of other attributes that I haven't thought to list here. I find myself well able to admire such persons irrespective of how long they've been doing it or whether they are considered natural or not.

Many of the arguments and postulations on this subject presented so far, have been at best inductive. While thought provoking they can not be considered as evidence for the various views they are being put forward to uphold. Because all the crows on your tree are black is not sufficient grounds for stating that all crows are, therefore, black. It appears that there may be some psychologists among us; psychology is labouring mightily to move into the realm of hard science, so is there any hard or at least statistically good evidence in the literature for the natural dom/sub argument?

 

[Netzach]

RS, post more dammit.

I have nothing theoretical to add.

My exemplars tend to be people who have been everywhere and tried everything. That goes a long way with me.

When I bottom, I *like* the way I don't *like* it. It's a moment of real grit for me, and I feel all wonderfully tough and butch, like when I got my first toolbox. It's totally a pain in my arse not to be "in control" and yet, somehow, I manage to get through it and not be scarred and that's the neat part.

So finding fun, fulfillment and pleasure, is this submission? Is submission a place of comfort? Not always, nor do I encourage my submissives to assume it is.

If I expect someone to grit her teeth and shut up and take it, it's because I know that I was able to do just that at some point, and I know how good it felt to know that I *could.*

 

[incubus_dark]

Netzach,

That seems as valid way of looking at it as any, but it doesn't seem to work for me I'm afraid. Perhaps I'm just too self indulgent to put up with something I don't like when there's naught but the most nebulous reasons for subjecting myself to it.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Oh my, I feel completely out of my depth now trying to answer to a post so eloquently and masterfully written. However, being the arrogant bastard I am (has to do with my innate characteristics), I cannot resist the temptation.

My caveat to the whole convo (and the ideological debate behind it) is this:
In the final analysis, labels are just words we use to pigeonhole others and try to fit them into our own view of how the world works. And labels encourage fragmentation rather than coalition building, so they're often inimicable to the building of wide communities. I've often wondered if this accounts for the relative racial segregation of the scene, as well as the tendency for distance between gay/lesbian leather folks and the straights.

Unfortunately in this world we need labels to an extent. After all they are nothing but words we utilise to help identify object’s both good and bad. Without labels there would be difficulty in identifying differences. Difference is not always a negative, often being reason to celebrate not denigrate – we are all unique and therefore different, sameness to me being an ideological fallacy and downright boring. I feel pride to be singled out as different….shows I am an individual and not one of the puppets of this world. Labels do not encourage fragmentation, on the other hand people do.

To quote a famous American saying, ‘guns do not kill people, people do’. The same can be said about labels. To imply that labels are responsible for the fragmentation inside the BDSM community is a very simplistic view, if not naïve. It is my opinion that it is the intolerance, miscomprehension, and closed mindedness that is mostly responsible. It happens because persons in the community cannot open themselves to ideas and thoughts of others. It also is an effective way of limiting the expression of others by attempting to make them feel judged and offensive if they dare acknowledge any difference in either themselves or others. Let’s face it, there is no better roadblock to stop the celebration and appreciation of diversity and difference than to shame another to silence. That then becomes oppression and a censor on freedom of speech.

Thus, when I look back at my childhood, based on who I know myself to be today, my most vivid memories are typically those which express (and confirm the longevity--even "naturalness" of) my adult identity. In my experience, this is utterly typical thought modelling

But are you claiming that those memories are false, and if they are not does it matter that you can remember them more vividly based on who you are? It does not negate the fact that they are still there. The memories are not less or more valid because you can remember them more vividly. So if the effect of your thought modelling is that you can remember the memories more vivid which are relevant to the person you have become, I would say hooray for thought modelling. It will help me understand myself better.

It's just terminology, and in the end, it really tells you very little--other than that most people who use the term "natural" ____ do so to apply it to themselves, and then usually as a way-station on the way to expressing some version of a (sometimes implied rather than explicit) hierarchy--one which always locates themselves at the top of the organizational scheme of BDSMers. What a coincidence, eh?

There is no hierarchy intended with the idea of natural Dominant. I do not claim or have ever claimed that being a natural dominant puts you at the top of the food chain. I just claim to have a more instinctive understanding of dominance than those who are not natural Dominants. I have also said that a switch has a broader understanding of BDSM and a natural submissive has a more instinctive understanding of submission. I believe in individuality like most people inside BDSM who are not connected to a club or subculture or subgroup inside BDSM. BDSM is about individuality and the choices you make. As for applying the term natural always to themselves in a supposed attempt at grandeur, my slave found in her own exploration of her submissive tendencies that each experienced Dominant she met told her she was what they classed a ‘natural born slave’ and as such they explained to her she would find she was much sought after by those seriously seeking a submissive. Never did she apply the term to herself or suggest she was better than anyone else.


At what point in one's life experience must it be expressed in order for it to count as "natural?"
If one has always gravitated to leadership positions and other roles expressive of Dominance, does that make one a "natural Dominant" when it comes to sexuality and lifestyle models? What if one has simultaneously been drawn to sexual submission since one's first sexual experience? Natural sub or Natural Dominant? And who gets to decide these things?


It is for everyone to call himself whatever they want, whenever they desire. It is my desire to call myself natural Dominant. I decide to call myself that, it was not my neighbour or my elected prime minister it was me as an individual, as it should be. Are you claiming that it is not my right to call myself natural Dominant, is there a specific course I need to follow, an exam to sit, or maybe I need permission from the organisation you mentioned before?

I found my dominance later in life, well of course that depends how you define later in life. The question if you are or are not a natural Dominant or natural slave is something that needs to be answered by every individual whenever they feel that they want to, or when they feel they know it in themselves.


To me, for me, the very idea of "exemplary" models of Dominance and submission is profoundly and utterly beside the fucking point--on all levels. I see no utility in this formulation, other than as a mechanism to reintroduce artificial hierarchies into a politically egalitarian community.

I fully agree with that, there is no need to formulate any models; there is only a need for certain persons inside the BDSM to be able to express their thoughts, to be able to express their ideas without being judged by others. That being said there is a basic need to fit an identity otherwise it could turn out very long and frustrating trying to find a partner from subs who call themselves dominant and vice versa. There is a set criteria attached to each role out of necessity not judgement or labelling.

There used to be a time when gays and lesbian where prosecuted because of whom they were and because of their sexuality. Even though it still is not accepted in certain parts of society, lets not make the same mistake. Allow everyone to be able to have their own views on BDSM without being judged, as long as they themselves do not judge others or try to force their own viewpoints onto others. It is this closed mindedness which is not able to accept viewpoints that are not in accordance with their own model of BDSM which is causing a rift inside the BDSM community, just as it has in racial groups, women’s causes, and the LGBT community.

So I agree, it is completely beside the fucking point.


Difference (such as between men and women, Dom/mes and subs, Blacks and whites and Asians, whatever) does not equate to assumed subordination on its own. *WE* make that happen, by using the fact of difference(s) between people(s) as an excuse to abuse and dehumanize each other. And that's when you get a fucked up superstructure--resulting in things like slavery. Or, hell, like the fact that women have had the vote for less than a hundred years in the U.S. I mean, really. Think on that, ladies, and see if you really feel comfortable blurring the line between *human difference* and *institutional hierarchy.*

Again I can only agree here, gender has nothing to do with BDSM. There is no right-minded person in this universe who should claim there rightfully needs to be a hierarchy based upon gender, but unfortunately in reality they still do. Fortunately I do not otherwise my slave being the raging feminist she is would never have looked sideways at me, unless of course she decided it were appropriate to castrate me.


Here's a for-instance to illustrate my point: Let's say I'm "naturally Dominant" but cho/ose to experience submission (not 24/7 TPE, but well more than conditional acquiescence) in order to more fully understand my own identity construction, the duality of the power exchange, submissive responses and needs, the community, etc. And, in making that choice and committing to it, let's further say that I possess sufficient self-awareness and control to also choose to find pleasure in it, by exploring it until "clicked" and I hit my groove on the flip side of my usual power dynamic.

If you would have read my postings more carefully you would have seen that I have tried to do exactly that. I have tried the famous so often mentioned path domination through submission, and have failed in it. Maybe I did not have the self-control needed for that or maybe I just cannot accept to be dominated.

To me domination exists out of fulfilling a mutual need, I dominate my partner who has a need to be dominated and as such chooses to submit. Any dominant I know of, has in more or less degree the same needs. Since I cannot submit and I would not enjoy it, it would be abuse. And abuse is not something any serious participant in BDSM would want to be part of.

*Ever had a job interview or other nominally social circumstance where you molded yourself to the perceived expectations of the other party/ies in order to achieve your ends? (get the job, etc.)

I fail to see the relevance of this in combination with BDSM. We are talking here about BDSM and dominance inside BDSM. If you want to talk about the finer point of anarchism I am fully open to that. But I fail to see what it has to do with BDSM.



My point is this: one can feel--truly, honestly, to the depths of one's being--the call to Dominance in a BDSM context, as well as the wide variety of other readily available negotiable power relations. That attraction to Dominance, however, is predicated upon willing submissive participating in that exchange with you and validating your self-identity by their eager embrace of it. If nobody was willing to submit to you, your desire to retain control would say precious little about your real power--the amount of control you can actually wield in any arena of your life without the compliance of others.

Like I have said before, Dominance to me is feeding my needs by feeding the needs of my submissive. I do not claim dominance over anyone else nor would I want to. I am very happy with my partner as I hope she is with me. I do not walk into a room expecting any submissive to drop in awe of me onto the floor, nor would I ever want to. As with many Dominants, doormats do not appeal at all to me.

Francisco.

 

[incubus_dark]

Again Francisco, I find your arguments both cogent and appealing to my own natural tendencies.

This recent thing where people decry the evils of labels seems especially pointless to me. Labels abound in every language and without them communication would be so cumbersome as to be pointless. Most people of average intelligence seem well able to differentiate betwen a brief label for a thing and the full richness of the thing itself. It is claimed that labels cause division, but I find it hard to believe that were there not some actual grounds for a division already perceived, the common and complacent ruck of humanity would not be bothered conceiving a plethora of labels. The BDSM community in particular, is notably diverse and thus has an equal diversity of labels. Removing labels wont unite people from the far points of the group's spectrum, as they probably feel they have little in common; it will, however, make it difficult for them to talk about each other. In those situations where labels are percieved as a problem, the difficulty seems largely to lie with what notions people attribute to the label in question, rather than the label itself. In typical human style, the usual cure for this appears to be for those parties whom consider themselves wronged, to develop a new and often more verbose label for themselves.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: caveat: this one's a behemoth. Read at your own risk (of narcolepsy)

Which brings me to my other (and, mercifully, last) point on the subject: No matter how Dominant one knows oneself to be, unless one becomes Master of the world--in other words, God or some non-theistic analog for the idea of supreme and incontestable power--one is always subordinated to at least one power structure, Dominated by at least one force stronger than self, limited by the very fabric of social interaction. That's the nature of the beast.

~~~~~

To state the obvious to anyone who has not been able to gather a little of our ethics throughout our association with Literotica, we practice safe, sane, consensual BDSM and do not push it onto unwilling people. Thus said we fail to see the relevance of the above statement. It confuses my obviously inadequate brain to fathom why being a Dominant or living a BDSM lifestyle within the confines of the lifestyle means you have failed in your dominance and proven yourself to be submissive if you do not break the law or blatently set out to abuse people in the greneral communiity. Must have been one of the lessons I missed while Master was whipping me!!

I see a very strange logic evolving here, it is in the same order as;
my cat has black fur, I have black hair therefore I must be a cat.

Catalina
Bisexual, feminist, N/D 24/7 slave

 

[catalina_francisco]

(1) My exemplars tend to be people who have been everywhere and tried everything. That goes a long way with me.


(2) If I expect someone to grit her teeth and shut up and take it, it's because I know that I was able to do just that at some point, and I know how good it felt to know that I *could.*

(1) Each to their own I guess. For myself I have always said I hope to still be learning something new even on my deathbed as I find it an impossible concept to limit learning to a definite beginning and end.

(2) Being able to take the pain, to grit the teeth would only release endorfines. It would not mean anything without submission, the mental submission that is, where a submissive submits to a dominant and where the dominant is fed, not by the pain the submissive can take but by the submissivesness they give and he receives.

Francisco &Catalina