The psychopathic sub

[dora_salonica]

There are quite a few texts that have been written about the healthy sub and about the troubled sub - namely by Yaldah Tovah, a Jewish submissive girl, back in 2000.

I would like to write about the psychopathic sub. Here it goes:

I recently read a book by Kahneman, the winner of the Nobel prize in Economics, in 2002. The book is titled "Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow" and is an international best-seller.

Kahneman opens the specific discussion by saying that cognitive illusion stems from psychopathic charm. Psychopathic charm for example invariably generates feelings of sympathy by a therapist towards a patient with a history of failed treatment.

“As a graduate student, I attended some courses on the art and science of psychotherapy. During one of these lectures, our teacher imparted a morsel of clinical wisdom. This is what he told us: 'You will from time to time meet a patient who shares a disturbing tale of multiple mistakes in his previous treatment. He has been seen by several clinicians, and all failed him. The patient can lucidly describe how his therapists misunderstood him, but he has quickly perceived that you are different. You share the same feeling, are convinced that you understand him, and will be able to help.' At this point my teacher raised his voice as he said, 'Do not even think of taking on this patient! Throw him out of the office! He is most likely a psychopath and you will not be able to help him.'

Many years later I learned that the teacher had warned us against psychopathic charm, and the leading authority in the study of psychopathy confirmed that the teacher's advice was sound... What we were being taught was not how to feel about that patient. Our teacher took it for granted that the sympathy we would feel for the patient would not be under our control; it would arise from System 1. Furthermore, we were not being taught to be generally suspicious of our feelings about patients. We were told that a strong attraction to a patient with a repeated history of failed treatment is a danger sign... It is an illusion – a cognitive illusion and I was taught how to recognize it and advised not to believe it or act on it.” (p. 28)

The same thing can happen to a Dom and a psychopathic sub with a history of failed D/s relationships. These feelings will occur either way and the Dom has to be vigilant – though he rarely is. This is a very useful and didactic little story and it certainly can be applied to psychopathic subs and Doms who invariably feel charmed by them, only to soon find themselves enmeshed in a sea of trouble.

What is your personal opinion of this? Do you know psychopathic subs? How can a Dom protect himself?

 

[Netzach]

I had a platonic relationship and subsequently a non-sexual D/s relationship with a male switch. Smart guy, very interesting, initially "crazy in a good way."

A red flag I should have caught sooner - every woman he ever was in a sexual rel. with was crazy and wrong. For one reason or another.

He revealed himself to be abusive to various friends of mine who DID connect with him more intimately. Every one.

So, I don't know what this really reveals beyond watch out for anybody who never has anything good to say about an ex and seems to have a persecution complex. I don't understand how a Dominant needs particular protection or tips, though safety information is usually focused on bottoms and women, and a lot of men and tops miss the lecture.

 

[YourCaptor]

They are fun though.

They love to fuck in all kinds of fucked up ways.

And the little games they play are so funny.

 

[dora_salonica]

So, I don't know what this really reveals beyond watch out for anybody who never has anything good to say about an ex and seems to have a persecution complex.

Good advice. Thanks!

They are fun though.

They love to fuck in all kinds of fucked up ways.

And the little games they play are so funny.

As a fuck-toy then... Hmm.... They might be dangerous though, especially if you want to do BDSM with them...

 

[All_4_Love]

What is your personal opinion of this? Do you know psychopathic subs? How can a Dom protect himself?

My first thought of this is, my gosh, are there that many psychopaths out there? Is it really that prevalent? And if so, why?

Also, it's my understanding that psychopaths are very controlling, whether covertly or overtly, so I would think a Dom dealing with a sub that is "controlling" would recognize that as a huge red flag since she is saying she is a submissive? Even if he's not recognizing her as psychopathic, she would be very difficult, so to speak.

 

[dora_salonica]

My first thought of this is, my gosh, are there that many psychopaths out there? Is it really that prevalent? And if so, why?

About 15% of the general population, according to Moser's estimates (I have mentioned him an another thread, he is one of the leading BDSM psychology experts), are into BDSM. Out of those there would certainly be a percentage with psychiatric problems, just as in the general population. We are mot exempt.

Also, it's my understanding that psychopaths are very controlling, whether covertly or overtly, so I would think a Dom dealing with a sub that is "controlling" would recognize that as a huge red flag since she is saying she is a submissive? Even if he's not recognizing her as psychopathic, she would be very difficult, so to speak.

Brilliant comment! I totally agree. In my experience, that is exactly the danger I was talking about. The Dom would find himself "in a sea of trouble" and it would be very difficult to disentangle himself. Imagine for example a psychopathic sub who will not accept her release and will threaten to reveal all, at the Dom's work place, his family etc...

there are lots of psychopaths, but that within that there are many kinds of psychopathy. If I remember right the defining element is a lack of ability to feel empathy, they way they cope with this (or don't) determines whether they'll blend in with society, manipulate their way up whatever hierarchy they set their sights on (very common), develop criminal belligerence or kill people, among other things, and therein lies the categorization.

sorry. point was yeah psychopathy is disturbingly common, but that doesn't mean a psychopath is a killer (if you were even thinking that). In very few cases though is a psychopath capable of maintaining healthy relationships, so it's definitely something to avoid.

Very good information. I did not know there were different kinds of psychopaths. I agree that they will not usually kill (not all subs are Mr. Ripley, lol) but I have seen manipulation take place, to the point where I was thinking, doesn't the Dom understand it? No, he could not understand it. And because this was an extremely intelligent Dom and very experienced and knowledgeable, I could not fathom it. So when I came across this passage about psychopathic charm, I finally had the answer...

 

[CutieMouse]

Psychopaths tend to be master manipulators. Master manipulators are good at creating a wide swath of drama, without the people directly involved really realizing what's happening (until the drama reaches carpet bombing stage). "Not noticing" your lover is creating said drama, until the fallout hits the fan, tends to happen with people like that; being involved in D/s doesn't change a thing.

The best way to avoid such things, IMO, is to work on developing, recognizing, and practicing healthy relationship boundaries. It helps one avoid the "psychopathic" types, altogether.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Yaldah Tovah, there's a blast from the past.

A Jon Jacobs disciple, anything she wrote can be taken as sock-puppeting his gospel which was, in short, 1. that there were very few real masters (only one, him, if you really want to get down to brass tacks) and 2. lack of real mastery is the root cause of all problems of subs.

 

[dora_salonica]

Psychopaths tend to be master manipulators. Master manipulators are good at creating a wide swath of drama, without the people directly involved really realizing what's happening (until the drama reaches carpet bombing stage). "Not noticing" your lover is creating said drama, until the fallout hits the fan, tends to happen with people like that; being involved in D/s doesn't change a thing.

Exactly. I would not exaggerate if I said I feel like I have been hit by a bomb... Hoping to re-surface though...

Yaldah Tovah, there's a blast from the past.

A Jon Jacobs disciple, anything she wrote can be taken as sock-puppeting his gospel which was, in short, 1. that there were very few real masters (only one, him, if you really want to get down to brass tacks) and 2. lack of real mastery is the root cause of all problems of subs.

There is some new information, finally... I have been looking all over for that girl...

I looked up Jon Jacobs and I came across a reference by Tanos, here: http://www.ownership-possession.com/blog/289600/

Apparently the man died in 2004. I wish I could find something more about him. Do you happen to know where I can find some writings?

As far as the two main assertions of his and her teachings, I tend to agree.

1. Of course every sub thinks she has the best and only Master. The same happens among animals, every female always allows herself to be selected by the most powerful male (as far as she can tell). Otherwise survival of the fittest would not work. Nature works according to specific and very logical and functional rules. Why would selection among human females be any different?

I will agree that there are very few real Masters because I have researched the matter extensively, on a personal level. Of course, statistically speaking, this leaves us still with a few thousand of them. I believe they will suffice - though barely (that also explains polyamory in BDSM).

2. One cannot blame the sub, not if she follows properly (obedience, perception, ability to understand and change etc). If a plan does not work, the planner changes it. No one will ever put blame on the person following a plan - unless he or she does a poor job of following.

Just personal opinion of course and I am sure there are many quite different ones.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Apparently the man died in 2004. I wish I could find something more about him. Do you happen to know where I can find some writings?

As far as official writings he mostly put words in the mouths of his legion of satellites, like POlly Peachum (his wife), Gloria Brame, and Yaldah Tovah who was known in those circles as "the subbie shrink" and whose degree in psychology lent a spurious air of academic authority to Jacob's (mainly second hand) pronouncements. Anything they write can be taken as approved by him taking into account various fallings-out, excommunications, schisms and other nonsense. His direct stuff was mostly on the alt.sex Usenet forums and many private chat wars and long vanished master sites. To dig it up is probably possible but would require more work that I'm willing to do. He was a presence on the internet from the earliest days, though and I'm sure it's all in wayback machine or whatever.

 

[Netzach]

As far as official writings he mostly put words in the mouths of his legion of satellites, like POlly Peachum (his wife), Gloria Brame, and Yaldah Tovah who was known in those circles as "the subbie shrink" and whose degree in psychology lent a spurious air of academic authority to Jacob's (mainly second hand) pronouncements. Anything they write can be taken as approved by him taking into account various fallings-out, excommunications, schisms and other nonsense. His direct stuff was mostly on the alt.sex Usenet forums and many private chat wars and long vanished master sites. To dig it up is probably possible but would require more work that I'm willing to do. He was a presence on the internet from the earliest days, though and I'm sure it's all in wayback machine or whatever.

I'm dying to see if any reason will be listened to on this one now. Since your av doesn't have lipstick maybe it will.

 

[Netzach]

1. Of course every sub thinks she has the best and only Master. The same happens among animals, every female always allows herself to be selected by the most powerful male (as far as she can tell). Otherwise survival of the fittest would not work. Nature works according to specific and very logical and functional rules. Why would selection among human females be any different?

Not a single person who has actually studied mammalian or other mating will agree with this simplification. First of all, a lot of species rely on female selection. Almost all harem animals display rampant female infidelity, and almost all beta and lesser males manage to spread some genes. If not, everything would be inbred out of existence. A lot of species even have small males who mimic female appearance to get close enough to mate - making the guys trying to duke it out basically failed biological branches. There are a lot of survival strategies out there. One episode of meerkat manor followed by one episode of Real Housewives is all it takes to figure this out.

I will agree that there are very few real Masters because I have researched the matter extensively, on a personal level. Of course, statistically speaking, this leaves us still with a few thousand of them. I believe they will suffice - though barely (that also explains polyamory in BDSM).

This doesn't jive with your statements above. If only a few thousand masters are biologically fit for female attention, we'd see that reflected in how people mate, marry, pair and select. Because we're not that capable of going against our "true nature" (which is actually adapable big-brain strategizing, but whatever.) And that's obviously not the workings of the world around us. If it's actually biologically based and so logical, then very few people would be able to overcome the logical instinct to mate with the same 3000 guys. Evidence is a lot stronger than your personal research that even if women ONLY wanted dominant males of masterful quality, that reality fails to reflect this. Bottom line - you have a kink. It is powerful and intense, because that is the nature of kinks, for ALL of us.

You are in a minority. You are no more "natural" than a crossdressing shoe worshipper. Deal.

2. One cannot blame the sub, not if she follows properly (obedience, perception, ability to understand and change etc). If a plan does not work, the planner changes it. No one will ever put blame on the person following a plan - unless he or she does a poor job of following.

Just personal opinion of course and I am sure there are many quite different ones.

To a degree responsibility rolls downhill and to a degree it does not. Just because someone is willing to fall on his sword to say everything is his problem, doesn't remove any accountability from lower ranks. You should remain in touch with right wrong and reality, even if you're owned. This is precisely what is so fucked up about this kind of thinking - you will get people who will drown their own kids if HE SAYS TO DO IT.

Taken to extremes - fine. Taken to extremes devoid of any of the compasses by which the rest of the world runs because "we are special snowflakes the vanilla world cannot possibly comprehend our savage beauty and blah" and you get into some very questionable moral territory.

 

[dora_salonica]

As far as official writings he mostly put words in the mouths of his legion of satellites, like POlly Peachum (his wife), Gloria Brame, and Yaldah Tovah who was known in those circles as "the subbie shrink" and whose degree in psychology lent a spurious air of academic authority to Jacob's (mainly second hand) pronouncements. Anything they write can be taken as approved by him taking into account various fallings-out, excommunications, schisms and other nonsense. His direct stuff was mostly on the alt.sex Usenet forums and many private chat wars and long vanished master sites. To dig it up is probably possible but would require more work that I'm willing to do. He was a presence on the internet from the earliest days, though and I'm sure it's all in wayback machine or whatever.

Thank you very much indeed for your answer.

I have asked you for some information, in case you had any, because I prefer to do my own research. I normally rely on first-hand reading of material, as well as on personal experience of course. I would hesitate to jump to conclusions. I have made a note of your personal opinion, which I take it to be negative for some reason, though the reason remains unclear to me. At College we were very encouraged to follow due academic process (stemming from Greek thought), even pertaining to such secondary matters as BDSM history...<smiles>

 

[Netzach]

My first thought of this is, my gosh, are there that many psychopaths out there? Is it really that prevalent? And if so, why?

Also, it's my understanding that psychopaths are very controlling, whether covertly or overtly, so I would think a Dom dealing with a sub that is "controlling" would recognize that as a huge red flag since she is saying she is a submissive? Even if he's not recognizing her as psychopathic, she would be very difficult, so to speak.

White Knight Complex rides strongly on our control/top impulses. I struggle with this myself. A good crazy manipulation is catnip to a lot of us.

I'm constantly encouraging Dom dudes (and ladies but even less so) to stay in touch with what they *want.* The needs of the sub and relationship are primary in the relationship it's true, but when every fucking thing is a "need" and you lose touch with your own identity (and I've seen this happen to guys a LOT) then you are in trouble and you are going to suffer immensely, as you are now no longer Dominant in the relationship and a vanilla one is probably healthier for you than this nuttiness.

 

[dora_salonica]

Dear Netzach, first of all please let me say that I find the intense eloquence of your reply quite flattering. I must have hit a nerve with what I said. Being a newbie here, I do not know if there is a kind of "war" going on between kinksters and D/s advocates. Judging from the country where I come from, there must be, there always is. For some reason, both parties believe that they are the holders of the truth about erotic matters and no one else knows shit. I have often been caught in between the two armies, as they were exchanging heavy insults to each other and I must admit, it was not a pretty sight...<smiles>

I belong to both groups, so I do not really find any contradiction in what these two groups practice and believe.

I am as kinky as they come, I have been blessed and cursed with every single kink there is (even coprophilia for God's sake, lol). And on the other hand, I have lived unimaginable ecstasies of belonging and have witnessed D/s and its workings, first-hand.

So I believe that eros takes many forms and sexual pleasure still many others. And that is okay.

Not a single person who has actually studied mammalian or other
mating will agree with this simplification. First of all, a lot of species rely on female selection.

That is also what I said. It is the female of the species that chooses to be selected (I say it elegantly, for there are male members of our species here too, and I would not want them to feel insulted). There is no single female, anywhere in the world, who would willingly go with a mangy, deformed, scrawny-looking male representative of the species... unless of course... he is Woody Allen.<smiles>

What I mean is that human culture has evolved to the degree that might and dominance do not rely anymore on muscle or physical symmetry (always indicative of the possibility of healthy offspring). A good bank account will also do the trick. All you have to do is look around you...

Almost all harem animals display rampant female infidelity, and almost all beta and lesser males manage to spread some genes.

Sure they do. That explains the existence of...republicans...<smiles>

If not, everything would be inbred out of existence.

Well, there was a man, called Charles Darwin. He pretty much proved how the whole thing works. I do hope no one is still in doubt...

For a more comprehensive view of choice of mate, one can always check the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice

There are a lot of survival strategies out there.

I agree with you on that one. And I think that everyone who has managed to make it this far is worth continuing to do so. With the appropriate mate. And there is at least one for each one of us.

This doesn't jive with your statements above.

There is no contradiction really, if you take what I said in the broadest sense possible. There is a mate for every single female for any kind of species. And each female, according to how strong (capable, intelligent, demanding, cultured etc) she is, she will seek the strongest. A fool will look for a fool. That is how fools get to mate.<smiles>

If it's actually biologically based and so logical, then very few people would be able to overcome the logical instinct to mate with the same 3000 guys.

They would. Because they would not recognize their superiority. It takes one to know one.

Evidence is a lot stronger than your personal research that even if women ONLY wanted dominant males of masterful quality, that reality fails to reflect this.

Well, I have not defined masterful quality. I have not even begun to discuss D/s yet. I only said there are few Masters out there but there are some, because I have found some. And if I have found some, statistically speaking, they do exist. Some other time we can talk about what they do and how to recognize one...

Women want someone whom they judge as THE BEST. You for example, would you ever take second best? I seriously doubt it. Even I would not, and I'm easy...<smiles>

Now, your best might differ from mine. That is another matter. But in principle, I think what I am saying is valid.

You are in a minority. You are no more "natural" than a crossdressing shoe worshipper. Deal.

Freud said that "the only unnatural sexual behavior is none at all."<smiles>

This is precisely what is so fucked up about this kind of thinking - you will get people who will drown their own kids if HE SAYS TO DO IT.

It is the sub's responsibility to choose well (this whole discussion is about choosing) and to make sure she follows well, but she is following the right one, the BEST for her (not the WORST, lol).

Please let me remind you of the necessity of safe, sane and consensual, in such matters.

Another slogan that some people might find helpful - this one I coined myself - is this: the violence of the Master and the violence of logic are one. If the sub is being foolish, her Master will tell her so, as will the laws of logic. If the Master begins to go against the laws of logic, something fishy is going on... Be careful girls of who you let handle your thoughts, emotions and body...

... "we are special snowflakes the vanilla world cannot possibly comprehend our savage beauty and blah"...

Brilliant! I bow to your sense of humor...<big grin>

Yes, these attitudes do exist and I feel they do some harm to those of us who have realistic expectations from our mates and from BDSM.

Thanks for the lovely discussion! Sorry for the length of the answer...

 

[KoPilot]

Is it just me, or is it always the same sort of person who uses "sub" and "female" interchangeably?

 

[MeekMe]

Is it just me, or is it always the same sort of person who uses "sub" and "female" interchangeably?

It's not just you.

 

[All_4_Love]

Is it just me, or is it always the same sort of person who uses "sub" and "female" interchangeably?

I am one of those people. I think it's because I selfishly just speak from a subjective point of view. I am truly sorry, as I have not made any gains in changing that. It is something I have disregarded. Just please know that it's not done intentionally.

I think "same sort of person" is pushing it, though. It's not a "sort of person" as much as it is being human and conditioning from our society.

I respect you, KP. My sincere apology for doing this over and over, but I won't make an empty promise that I won't continue to do it. *hugs*

 

[All_4_Love]

White Knight Complex rides strongly on our control/top impulses. I struggle with this myself. A good crazy manipulation is catnip to a lot of us.

I'm constantly encouraging Dom dudes (and ladies but even less so) to stay in touch with what they *want.* The needs of the sub and relationship are primary in the relationship it's true, but when every fucking thing is a "need" and you lose touch with your own identity (and I've seen this happen to guys a LOT) then you are in trouble and you are going to suffer immensely, as you are now no longer Dominant in the relationship and a vanilla one is probably healthier for you than this nuttiness.

Agreed. And it takes a Dom/me being extremely self aware and in control to be able to recognize this. Kudos to you.

ETA: Shit, I did it again, wrote Dom instead of Dom/me. Sorry Netz.

 

[All_4_Love]

Brilliant comment! I totally agree. In my experience, that is exactly the danger I was talking about. The Dom would find himself "in a sea of trouble" and it would be very difficult to disentangle himself. Imagine for example a psychopathic sub who will not accept her release and will threaten to reveal all, at the Dom's work place, his family etc...

Thank you. You are the first person in this forum that has given me a compliment or cared to even acknowledge that something I had to say was worthwhile. (other than Stella, but that's because she is amazing)

I don't think I've spoken to you directly before. It's nice to meet you. This is a very interesting thread and I'm appreciative of your position on things. I'll be back to read through and comment more when I am able.

Take care.

 

[Netzach]

Well, there was a man, called Charles Darwin. He pretty much proved how the whole thing works. I do hope no one is still in doubt...

For a more comprehensive view of choice of mate, one can always check the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice

Science is also not frozen in time with the Beagle. Try Stephen J Gould for starters. It's survival of the fittest. Except when it's not. And when humans don't understand what fitness requires, we make assumptions based on our culture. Which has also changed a bit since 1860. Also, no I did say FEMALE SELECTION and I meant it not "females allowing herself to be selected" in many species the male is NOT going to mate with a female who has not presented herself and made a known choice of HIM. You see it in birds almost all the time, but you'll see it in some mammals too. We're pretty close to anything with warm blood and fur.

There is no contradiction really, if you take what I said in the broadest sense possible. There is a mate for every single female for any kind of species. And each female, according to how strong (capable, intelligent, demanding, cultured etc) she is, she will seek the strongest. A fool will look for a fool. That is how fools get to mate.<smiles>

Seriously? You've never seen a couple mismatched in temprament, quality, ambition, and intelligence? WILDLY mismatched?

It just doesn't work like this. Or it does, except when it doesn't. We can't figure out how Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas work together, let alone why one lyrebird makes it with a female and another doesn't. What we don't understand is much bigger than what we do.

Women want someone whom they judge as THE BEST. You for example, would you ever take second best? I seriously doubt it. Even I would not, and I'm easy...<smiles>

Now, your best might differ from mine. That is another matter. But in principle, I think what I am saying is valid.

No comprende. Seriously, makes no sense. Not even for picking out a handbag let alone a sexual partner. I see an assumed authority or APEX and I immediately wonder what's so great about it and avoid it.

I'm THE APEX in my worldview, frankly. Not that I believe this in metric reality, but it's the presumption with which I choose to move through life.

When you have assigned yourself "the best" selecting the acceptable is your next job.

I have a continuum, and there's a point at which a person is not an ACCEPTABLE partner, friend, person to sit next to on a crowded vehicle or whatever. (Different criteria, obviously) But everything above that line is in the realm of consideration, and I generally have an open mind about it and curiosity. Is this acceptable, suitable, fitting? Good enough is great. I've taken second and even third best as long as they're interesting enough - what I won't do is pick the dog that's biting everybody. Or the one that's just duhhhhhh.....Because I'm also lazy.

It is the sub's responsibility to choose well (this whole discussion is about choosing) and to make sure she follows well, but she is following the right one, the BEST for her (not the WORST, lol).

I realize that the whole thing boils down to "well he would never ask me to do that." I just don't trust a lot of people's decisions when they're horny and in love. Certainly not mine, but at least I know and admit this.

 

[KoPilot]

I am one of those people. I think it's because I selfishly just speak from a subjective point of view. I am truly sorry, as I have not made any gains in changing that. It is something I have disregarded. Just please know that it's not done intentionally.

I think "same sort of person" is pushing it, though. It's not a "sort of person" as much as it is being human and conditioning from our society.

I respect you, KP. My sincere apology for doing this over and over, but I won't make an empty promise that I won't continue to do it. *hugs*

Tbh, I haven't actually noticed that you do this, but if you say that you do, and that you'll make an attempt to kick the habit, it's much appreciated!

Personally, I feel that it is a type of person who engages in this more often than not-- they're big on The Rules of D/s, they're old school to a fault, their way is the only real and healthy way, and they project like there's no tomorrow. Is it no coincidence that their view of kink is so narrow that they can barely even acknowledge that there are submissive men or dominant women, let alone all sorts of other people in all places between and elsewhere entirely?

 

[rosco rathbone]

Is it just me, or is it always the same sort of person who uses "sub" and "female" interchangeably?

I do it 1/3rd ironically, 1/3 to be annoying, and 1/3 because I feel that way.

 

[dora_salonica]

Is it just me, or is it always the same sort of person who uses "sub" and "female" interchangeably?

I do not have a definition of the "sort of person" who does that, so I am not able to answer the question.

Personally, and since I move comfortably along the lines of switching, I have no problem either way. I do appreciate however the respect for any status of any gender.

Thank you. You are the first person in this forum that has given me a compliment or cared to even acknowledge that something I had to say was worthwhile. (other than Stella, but that's because she is amazing)

I don't think I've spoken to you directly before. It's nice to meet you. This is a very interesting thread and I'm appreciative of your position on things. I'll be back to read through and comment more when I am able.

Take care.

We should always give credit where credit is due, I think, so I commented on what I felt was really worthwhile.

Glad you are enjoying the thread. Please feel free to contribute. All opinions are valuable to all of us. Synthesis of ideas has never harmed anyone...

Science is also not frozen in time with the Beagle. Try Stephen J Gould for starters. It's survival of the fittest. Except when it's not. And when humans don't understand what fitness requires, we make assumptions based on our culture. Which has also changed a bit since 1860. Also, no I did say FEMALE SELECTION and I meant it not "females allowing herself to be selected" in many species the male is NOT going to mate with a female who has not presented herself and made a known choice of HIM.

Got you! And I will check out the reference. Thanks!

Seriously though, when the female does not select, the same laws apply. The alpha male will only mate with an alpha female. So it is only the gender that changes, not the mechanism itself.

You've never seen a couple mismatched in temprament, quality, ambition, and intelligence? WILDLY mismatched?

It just doesn't work like this. Or it does, except when it doesn't. We can't figure out how Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas work together, let alone why one lyrebird makes it with a female and another doesn't. What we don't understand is much bigger than what we do.

I have seen people who are mates and I cannot figure out how they chose each other. But I know they have found their own secret symmetry and who I am to say who is the best partner for someone... I do not do it even for my daughters (especially not for my daughters...)

As for Michael Douglas... well, I heard that he is an expert with his...tongue! So there you have it...<smiles>

No comprende. Seriously, makes no sense. Not even for picking out a handbag let alone a sexual partner. I see an assumed authority or APEX and I immediately wonder what's so great about it and avoid it.

Fantastic. You are kinkier than you appear...<huge smile>

I'm THE APEX in my worldview, frankly. Not that I believe this in metric reality, but it's the presumption with which I choose to move through life.

Don't we all?

When you have assigned yourself "the best" selecting the acceptable is your next job.

I agree again. Otherwise we should opt for... celibacy, lol.

I realize that the whole thing boils down to "well he would never ask me to do that." I just don't trust a lot of people's decisions when they're horny and in love. Certainly not mine, but at least I know and admit this.

Good point! The real problems begin when he asks us to do something extreme. Once I was asked by a Dom (as punishment) to go out in the streets of my hometown and beg around for money. I refused to do it. Am I a bad sub? No, I don't think so. I believe the Dom made a mistake and to tell you the truth my reaction forced him to see it, to acknowledge it and to correct it.

In BDSM there are no absolute rules, we make it good or bad, depending on our own wisdom, our creativity, our challenges... We do the best we can. I am sure, as you say, that everyone has an ideal in their mind, but... Ideals are ideals. What matters is what we do with what we've got.

I hope we all keep an open mind and are always prepared for the worst, while bringing out the best in each other. Hard work, but it is sure worth it...

 

[KoPilot]

I do it 1/3rd ironically, 1/3 to be annoying, and 1/3 because I feel that way.

You're exempt.