In dating, the word submissive can have a negative context for some. Yet, we all 'submit' to some authority or another to get through life.

When we are in school , we 'submit' to the school rules and guidelines, and our parents and elders.

When we work, we 'submit' to workplace rules and guidelines.

When we shop, we 'submit' to the cultural expectations and building rules and regulations.


etc,,,etc,,etc,,


It seems to me, that in any interaction, there is give and take. There is something each side is willing to give for something they want to receive.


In a relationship, both parties have an emotional need trying to be met and both can decide what they will give in return. In a culture that values 'independence' above all else. I feel it takes a certain STRENGTH to relinquish a certain amount of 'authority' to someone else, so long as that someone else is not the type to abuse that authority in ways to harm or dehumanize you.

Polygamy was the topic in another dating thread. I was wondering about the D/S (dominant/submissive) relationship.

Noting that there is room for abuse and corruption wherever people are involved, even in dating commitments,,,,,

I think I could be happy with my own Christian Grey. On a scale of 1 to 10. 1 being a Beaver Cleaver and 10 being Christian Grey,, where are you on the scale of submissive to dominant?

I am on the oh hell no
what number would that fall under?


I am for what each finds pleasurable
depending on what that is..

if I consider it a whack job request? uh no

Atavistic memories, from cave-man days, make females
recognize the physical superiority of males in male-
female relationships allowing for submissive tendencies
which I believe still exist today.

No biggie for me, a little seeming submission on occasion
seems to be appreciated by both myself and my male
partner. Feels right :-)

hmm, well the question was more about individual tendency towards being the leading role or the supporting one.

It is absolutely significant that each find their relationship pleasurable though.

What an interesting subject to bring up, I suppose it's like every thing in life, it's all a matter of-want & need, but above all agreement,

If I can make lite of this,
the Masochist says to the Sadist, Beat me,and the Sadist says no.

In the middle

I'm not quite sure but I think it might have something to do with what phase the moon is in...

I guess I just have an aversion to the word itself.
I have no problem and am not threatened by saying, "Take over! You are more capable right now."

why am I not surprised?

Any aversion to hearing 'take me, Im yours"?

Brat!

Oh, I do have a few surprises

There's a difference between "submission" as part of social reciprocity and "submissive" being part of BDSM.

As you note there is a give and take in social reciprocity.
"I will recognize your authority, as long as you provide x,y,z, and don't do 1,2,3. I will give you power, only as long as you give me (safety, security, a say in the voting process, equality in your application of authority, whatever)."

In BDSM a "true" submissive submits without the expectations of reciprocity.
They give up authority/control, willingly, without expectations of a return.
No "I will be submissive to you...as long as you pay my rent, buy me a car, pay my bills, etc."

It's just "I give myself wholly to you. I submit to you. I am yours to do with as you will."
What they get in return, if anything, is purely at the discretion of the dominant.
That's why there's so much discussion of trust involved and "true" submission takes time to develop. There's no "Hi, I'm Randy, I submit completely to you...what's your name?"

A "submissive" that only submits for the sake of receiving something, only as long as they are receiving something, will ultimately "top from the bottom," passive aggressively pushing to get what they want.
Submission becomes more about entitlement.
"I submitted to you, so you have to do this for me. I fulfilled my part of the social contract, now you are obligated to fulfill yours. Since you accepted payment, I get to decide what I paid for. I am playing the role of the submissive, so you have to play the role of the dominant, I am forcing you into your role as the dominant."

Little different than when people go to fast food restaurants and pay for their food first, and when they're waiting they take some napkins, a couple of straws, far more ketchup packets than they need, and if their order isn't exactly what they wanted? Ran out of special nugget dipping sauce? Then holy crap.

That's not being "submissive," BDSMically speaking.


Seems the scale should be more like -10 to 10.
-10 being submissive 10 being dominant, 0 being relatively neutral.
I probably hover between the -9 to 9.78 area I think, depending on the situation, my mood, intoxication level, hotness of my date, how much I want a raise, all sorts of things.


Was that serious?
I don't think that's true.
Women tend to have gender specific hormones and chemicals and brain structure more tailored to focusing on complex (social) relationships.

It might not necessarily be "recognize the physical superiority of males" so much as "are more chemically predisposed to find it easier to adapt themselves to men for the sake of preserving complex social relationships which women have had to rely on for protection and survival more so than men since women tend to become relatively incapacitated during some of the time after getting knocked up," atavistically speaking.



Sometimes the leading role is the supporting role.
I think a more appropriate question would have been something more like "in your relationships, do you tend to pick partners that come to expect you to take a dominant/submissive leadership role? Dominant/submissive supportive role? More of a you take responsibility while they take control role? Or flexible role where there is no real leadership so much as respect for individual abilities depending on a situation? No leadership so much as mutual decision making?"

IMO/IME most people try to avoid taking a leading role or being forced into a strictly supporting role in a relationship.
That tends to make the relationship all about one person, with the other simply being an extension of the other.

IMO that's why so many people avoid one night stands and casual sex as well as "just friends" or "friend zoned."
No one wants to be an extension of someone else, a means solely to provide leadership or support for the other persons ideal relationship, or physical, emotional, or mental gratification.

D/s is not always -usually isn't- a 24/7 you know..
Not sure what you mean by "beaver cleaver"... I know what beaver means, not sure what the expression means in relationship to the subject... Real abuse??? (sorry, English is not my 1st language and occasionally I get stuck)

In day to day life I like things to be equal. Me standing beside him, complementing each other like Yin and Yang. That means he has the most 'taking charge' role as he is masculine. I'm totally cool with that. It's what I want, what I need, so I can be totally woman :) Never had a masculine energy man before, such a relief! Takes a burden of my shoulders, not having to carry the masculine load anymore.

As for D/s... The books I'm getting published are romantic BDSM novels, so the subject has my interest for sure, otherwise I wouldn't write about it.
I'm busy with BDSM every day, cos I'm writing every day

Crystal

leave it to beaver was an American series about a 'wholesome' American family Their last name was cleaver and the leading kid was nicknamed beaver.

I am along the lines of your thinking regarding the 24/7 thing. Particularly as a mother, there are other roles I am fulfilling throughout the day that would not coexist very well.

There are contracts that can be drawn up so each person can lay out their comfort zone and no one has absolute power to abuse. Abuse is out of the question, the dominance for me has to come from the place of love and protection and not mere ego or self-fulfillment.

I will not do the B or the M (bondage or masochism for those unfamiliar) but have always had an admiration for the D and the S or dominant and submissive balance in the relationship.

They say sometimes people are drawn to the characteristics of their parents. Even biblically speaking, the woman leaves her parents to go into the relationship with a husband, who then is fulfilling the provisions the parents once provided, imho.

I could go on and on as the subject truly intrigues me, but I will stop here. I would love an opportunity to read your writings someday.

In normal relationship life I don't regard it as D/s, but as 'masculine' and 'feminine'.
Yang/masculine is the active energy, undertaking, taking charge, penetrating, focusing, action etc.
Yin/Feminine is opposite. Soft, vulnerable, ability to wait and go with the flow and so on.
You can interpret that as D/s, but it's not. Unless you truly mean D/s the BDSM way. I also take a lot of interest in these dynamics, the masculine & feminine I mean.
BDSM as well of course, part of my life.

My writings... first book will be available on pre-order the 25th this month, early download on May 9th, general release June 6th -including print on demand.
Not self-publishing, I got a publisher who does all the work for me :) Including making a beautiful cover for my book.

.. without reading the topic runs into the topic room.. holding a bag full of leather whips chains handcuffs..
Butt plugs and vibrators.. says out loud may I put that bag down please madam.??. pretty pretty please.. lowers his head.. in a very submissive way and stares down at the ground waiting for a reply

That is awesome. You don't post to impress, but I am impressed and will be looking for it.

1. I disagree completely with the idea that we all "submit" to various authorities, and that "submission" is a normal element in every day life.

I don't "submit," I choose to COOPERATE or not. Very big difference.

SUBMITTING means that I give away my own right and ability to choose, and I simply don't do that.

2. As for whatever relationship arrangements anyone wants to have, I will support them with a number of important limits. I am NOT an "anything goes between consenting adults" person, despite my fierce support of individual rights, because I have witnessed too many fully grown adults who were used and abused by others, because they were UNABLE to make a reasoned choice.

3. I really dislike the whole "Shades of Grey" fad. Prejudice of a sort. I've seen a number of these sorts of things before. My annoyance with it isn't because of the S&M stuff. Anyone can do as they like, as far as that goes. What annoys me, is that it's the usual scenario that movies seem to like to set up, where someone "bravely" chooses an unusual lifestyle...but of course, it happens to be with a rich, suave, powerful, attractive person. I'm not impressed with the "bravery."