are we born submissive???

Join Our Community

As the Collar Turns:

Collarchat.com - BDSM Forum

Home Login Event Calendars Search

are we born submissive???

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive/Slave >> are we born submissive???

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

are we born submissive??? - 3/25/2004 10:26:30 PM

knees2you

Posts: 1129
Joined: 3/15/2004
Status: offline

knees2You here are we born
submissive or is it taught to us or both????

Sincerely, knees2You

quote if a snake bites before it is charmed there is no profit
for the charmer.

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/25/2004 11:09:04 PM

perverseangelic

Posts: 2245
Joined: 2/2/2004
From: Davis, Ca
Status: offline

i was born this way. i can't remember a time i -didn't- have submissive sexual fantasies. i've been "this way" from the cradle as far as i can see.

however, i don't doubt some people, especially women, are "trained" to be submissive by society. women are often taught, by dirrect discussion and by example, that they should defer to men or that they should sit quietly and listen to their betters. they have been, in essence, taught how to be weak.

i don't consider myself someone who has been taught weakness. i am very much in controll of my life-from finances to mental well-being. submissiveness, and the desire to serve are a part of my makeup. i simply feel more complete when i am in a position to serve someone else. this expresses itself in submission/slavery, yes, but also in being a shoulder for my friends, blah blah blah, you get the drift.

so. -i- was born like this :)

(in reply to knees2you)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/25/2004 11:37:00 PM

Estring

Posts: 1266
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

Interesting that being trained to be submissive would make a woman weak, but being born submissive wouldn't. I don't see a submissive woman as weak regardless of how she became that way. A sub knows and grows in her place.

(in reply to perverseangelic)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/26/2004 12:17:52 AM

inyouagain

Posts: 427
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline

knees, there is a thread in the General BDSM Discussion forum titled Does age matter? in which the subject of genetic predisposition (born that way) was discussed along with the age of a Dominant.

In that thread, the subject of "age impact" brought out the issue of genetic predisposition, and you may find it to be very interesting, especially with regard to your question regarding predisposition.

Inyouagain

(in reply to knees2you)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/26/2004 10:59:57 AM

seattleminx

Posts: 46
Joined: 1/1/2004
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

I'm not so sure anyone is born submissive, any more than someone is born dominant. If we're talking if there are some people who are biologically predetermined to follow, then I'd have to guess that ...no, people aren't born submissive. In the nature vs. nurture argument, I'd say that nurture plays a far bigger role into D/s predispositions.

Of course, I have no evidence to back that up, so take it for what it's worth.

(in reply to knees2you)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/26/2004 11:18:50 AM

perverseangelic

Posts: 2245
Joined: 2/2/2004
From: Davis, Ca
Status: offline

"Interesting that being trained to be submissive would make a woman weak, but being born submissive wouldn't. I don't see a submissive woman as weak regardless of how she became that way. A sub knows and grows in her place. "

realizing what i wrote i realized how dumb i sounded. i was unclear.

i think there are 2 differnt kinds of submission, consensual and non-consensual.
i think both can be trained.

i was addressing non-consensual submission in my previous post, so-called trained weakness. when a woman is taught that she MUST be weak to be a proper woman.

HOWEVER. i think consensual submission can also be learned. i have no experience with this, so i won't address it.

i appolgoize for the rude sound of my previous post. i wasn't trying to pass judgement. i was just being an unclear feminst :)

(in reply to seattleminx)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/26/2004 3:35:51 PM

sweetieboop

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

I don't think you sounded rude, but it still doesn't make sense to me. It sounds like you are saying that if a person submits to someone (consentual or not) it is considered a weakness. I think that people who submit to anyone just because they say so or just because they say they are a Dom, is weakness. However, you can be a strong confident person and choose to submit to your Master. You can also submit to your Master to something you don't necessarily want to do, without it being a sign of weakness. As a matter of fact, I think you are a stronger person for it because you have the courage to do something that you normally wouldn't in order to please your Master.

Just to make it clear, these are my views and opinions. I'm not trying to say this is the only way. :)

(in reply to perverseangelic)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/26/2004 3:38:59 PM

sweetieboop

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

I just read your second post again and I must add, I don't believe that a submissive is necessarily a follower. he/she follows the direction of their Master/Mistress, but that doesn't classify them as a follower IMO.

(in reply to seattleminx)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/26/2004 4:20:06 PM

Estring

Posts: 1266
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

I think we all are born submissive. We all get our asses smacked when we pop out of our mothers. Perhaps how we react to that spanking determines if we will be sub or Dom.

(in reply to sweetieboop)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/26/2004 8:39:31 PM

slave00

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline

Greetings To Aall,
Please forgive this slave, but she refuses to believe that any submissive... whether they be born or "made" to be such, is weak. In this slave's humble opinion, it takes a very strong person to be submissive... to be able to put Another's needs, wishes, wants, desires ahead of your own; to remain focused upon Another (or try to remain so as much as possible); to, as was mentioned also, go against what you might "normally" do. How can anyOone say that this is a weakness?? This slave apologizes if she is out of line, but she takes some offense at being called "weak" and imagines there are probably more like her out there as well. Thanks for allowing this slave to speak her two-cents worth and again, she humbly apologizes if she's stepped out of line.
Best Wishes to Yyou Aall,
~slave

(in reply to perverseangelic)

Profile

Post #: 10

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/26/2004 9:47:03 PM

proudsub

Posts: 3896
Joined: 1/31/2004
From: Washington
Status: offline

quote:

Please forgive this slave, but she refuses to believe that any submissive... whether they be born or "made" to be such, is weak

Well said slave00!!!!!!!

_____________________________

proudsub

"Without goals you become what you were. With goals you become what you wish." .

(in reply to slave00)

Profile

Post #: 11

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/26/2004 10:15:42 PM

perverseangelic

Posts: 2245
Joined: 2/2/2004
From: Davis, Ca
Status: offline

i don't think i said that at all...

i don't believe submission is weakness at all. i believe it's a character trait and just one of many. heck, i'm an out-there, leading type of submissive who often takes controll of a situation.

i was trying to differentiate between the submission that is a personal choice, and the type that is forced upon individuals by society. i was trying to say that women are often taught through gendered and sexualized assumptions and beahviors that their "role" should be to be weak. not -submissive- women. -all- women.

i think this is much less the case now, however especially pre-women's movement i believe this to be true. this could just stem from my reading of THe Feminine Mystique though. it shaped my ideolgoies quite a bit.

truth be told, i think submissive women sometimes have more inner strenght than other types of women because they must continually justify their identity.

am i just digging myself deeper? should i stop now? please advise.

(in reply to proudsub)

Profile

Post #: 12

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/26/2004 11:29:51 PM

inyouagain

Posts: 427
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline

I had posted a reply to your original post last night, and as it posted the collarme SQL server went offline, and my post is no longer there.

I stated that I understand your 'weak' reference to be the society imposed gender label of females being the weaker sex, in relation to the male being the stronger sex. Where did society pick up this notion... possibly from observing nature's natural order in the animal kingdom, where exception is not the rule, and overall typically male animals are the stronger sex of animals.

Humans from day one have tended to parallel nature's natural order of animals, which the human male killed as food and clothing for his brood, while the human female prepared the provided food, and generally took care of the domestic home/cave front. Much human behavior parallels lower animal species, while we are sophisticated and elegant after learning to live indoors with hot & cold running water, A/C, TV, phones, internet access to this message board, and fetishes of virtually any type.

As humans tended to follow nature's order, many cultures adopted their own variations of sophistications. Oriental cultures for example have a philosophy of accepting females as BOTH being the weaker sex AND should therefore be submissive to and serve the stronger counterpart male.

Traditionally in most cultures, armed forces consist of stronger male warriors who conduct warfare against other male warriors, while on both homefronts their weaker sex women keep the home fires burning. Terrorist groups use disposable men to conduct human bomb warfare against helpless civilian targets, and are now starting to twist traditional gender roles and use disposable female bombers to conduct terrorist warfare.

Regarding your term "women are trained to be weak", your intent may have been much clearer by saying "women are historically conditioned to the role as the weaker sex"?

As I stated in another thread (referenced in my reply to knees2you), I believe in predisposition... but will go one step further and say predisposition is not finite or terminal, as humans have the intellectual capacity to be 'rehabilitated' or re-conditioned. It is not uncommon for a lifelong Dominant to be retrained/rehabilitated/re-conditioned to be and serve as a submissive... with the majority being by personal choice.

Granted it's more prevalent with Mistress/Domme's than with Master/Dom's but that may be a result of the women's movement you mentioned... as us strong men didn't have a movement.

Inyouagain

(in reply to perverseangelic)

Profile

Post #: 13

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/27/2004 2:41:37 AM

iwillserveu

Posts: 1641
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

inyouagain,

The male is stronger only in mammals. Insects, birds, fish, reptiles, etc. are replete with stronger than the male female examples.

_____________________________

When the Lady smiles i can't resist her call. As a matter of fact, i don't resist at all. Well that depends if it is a smile or a grimmace.

(in reply to inyouagain)

Profile

Post #: 14

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/27/2004 9:59:02 AM

perverseangelic

Posts: 2245
Joined: 2/2/2004
From: Davis, Ca
Status: offline

in you again "Regarding your term "women are trained to be weak", your intent may have been much clearer by saying "women are historically conditioned to the role as the weaker sex"? "

-Thank you-!!
that's what i was trying to say. i couldn't figure out another way to word it.

thank you. i feel better now that i know i wasn't being totally obtuse.

and just to say this -again- submissives aren't anything just because they're submissives. it's just one of your personality traits.

(in reply to iwillserveu)

Profile

Post #: 15

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/27/2004 12:37:58 PM

jeff2505

Posts: 5
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Hi... I just thought I'd intersperse this discussion with some biological input, since we're verging towards my area of expertise.

#1
Someone mentioned that some people may be "biologically predetermined." I'd just like to point out that there's no such thing. Any geneticist, or even biologist, worth his beans knows that:

genotype + environment = phenotype

Genetic predeterminism is garbage. Genes do not exist without the world around them. And this world is packed of things that will influence and change us.

#2
It was said:

"Humans from day one have tended to parallel nature's natural order of animals, which the human male killed as food and clothing for his brood, while the human female prepared the provided food, and generally took care of the domestic home/cave front."

Now which animals are we parralleling? I can't think of a single example where the female does not hunt for her own food. In the case of wolves, mice, snakes, alligators, bears, ducks, both females and females hunt their own food. To the best of my knowledge, in the larger felines (like lions), the females do all of the hunting themselves and the male just eats what they catch.

The only reason the female looks after her own brood in most cases comes down to the fact that the male can't do it. I'm speaking purely of mammals here. One of the defining properties of a mammal is lactation...something the male doesn't experience. I don't discount child rearing in other animal groups either though, but in fish, arthropods, and birds both male and female can care for the young.

The line: "The male is stronger only in mammals." Just seems strange to me. When you consider the fact that the female not only hunts for food just like the males (in most cases) but also must care for her young (which the male may or may not participate in)... you'd really have to conclude that the female is stronger.

-jeff

(in reply to perverseangelic)

Profile

Post #: 16

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/27/2004 1:33:05 PM

Estring

Posts: 1266
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

The line: "The male is stronger only in mammals." Just seems strange to me. When you consider the fact that the female not only hunts for food just like the males (in most cases) but also must care for her young (which the male may or may not participate in)... you'd really have to conclude that the female is stronger.

Or you could conclude that the Male is smarter.

(in reply to jeff2505)

Profile

Post #: 17

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/27/2004 4:27:07 PM

inyouagain

Posts: 427
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeff2505

Hi... I just thought I'd intersperse this discussion with some biological input, since we're verging towards my area of expertise.

#1
Someone mentioned that some people may be "biologically predetermined." I'd just like to point out that there's no such thing. Any geneticist, or even biologist, worth his beans knows that:

genotype + environment = phenotype

Genetic predeterminism is garbage. Genes do not exist without the world around them. And this world is packed of things that will influence and change us.

Nobody but you referred to "predeterminism", while "predisposition" was mentioned in this thread and others. They are totally different aspects that are quite often opposites.

Predeterminism (predetermination) is finite/resolute, while Predisposition refers to leaning towards, or susceptable to... while not definite in outcome. If you were predetermined to have cancer you would in fact have cancer... while being predisposed to cancer does not mean you will ever have cancer.

I do like your analogy: "Genetic predeterminism is garbage. Genes do not exist without the world around them. And this world is packed of things that will influence and change us." It is essentially an introspective regarding Darwin's theory of Evolution, is it not?

quote:

#2
It was said:

"Humans from day one have tended to parallel nature's natural order of animals, which the human male killed as food and clothing for his brood, while the human female prepared the provided food, and generally took care of the domestic home/cave front."

Now which animals are we parralleling? I can't think of a single example where the female does not hunt for her own food. In the case of wolves, mice, snakes, alligators, bears, ducks, both females and females hunt their own food. To the best of my knowledge, in the larger felines (like lions), the females do all of the hunting themselves and the male just eats what they catch.

The only reason the female looks after her own brood in most cases comes down to the fact that the male can't do it. I'm speaking purely of mammals here. One of the defining properties of a mammal is lactation...something the male doesn't experience. I don't discount child rearing in other animal groups either though, but in fish, arthropods, and birds both male and female can care for the young.

The line: "The male is stronger only in mammals." Just seems strange to me. When you consider the fact that the female not only hunts for food just like the males (in most cases) but also must care for her young (which the male may or may not participate in)... you'd really have to conclude that the female is stronger.

-jeff

Your question was answered in my original post. Man paralleled what he hunted, killed and used in order to survive. Yes, this means all men did not study the same animals and adopt the same animals behavior in unison... so note that you asked me to define a variable.

You are fully entitled to your opinion that female species care for their offspring because males can't... based on lactation, but I might add that I've never seen a cave dweller drawing of breasts, only of beasts... the food chain of animals man found interesting, intriguing and useful to him, or of which he respected for some reason or another.

You yourself gave expertise as to why all things are learned and not inborn. With regard to larger felines you mentioned, it is they who usually hunted and killed man. I can see the possibility they patterned their behavior around man, who they consumed. Perhaps the human female ran faster and got away, and the larger felines felt the human female was a faster, or better hunter?

Inyouagain

(in reply to jeff2505)

Profile

Post #: 18

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/27/2004 4:37:57 PM

inyouagain

Posts: 427
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic

in you again "Regarding your term "women are trained to be weak", your intent may have been much clearer by saying "women are historically conditioned to the role as the weaker sex"? "

-Thank you-!!
that's what i was trying to say. i couldn't figure out another way to word it.

thank you. i feel better now that i know i wasn't being totally obtuse.

You are very welcome. I'm glad I stumbled upon a phrase that worked. I feel your point was valid and thought I understood your meaning, and did not think you were digging yourself deeper at all.

Inyouagain

(in reply to perverseangelic)

Profile

Post #: 19

RE: are we born submissive??? - 3/29/2004 6:03:00 AM

londonswitch

Posts: 77
Joined: 3/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

I think we all are born submissive. We all get our asses smacked when we pop out of our mothers. Perhaps how we react to that spanking determines if we will be sub or Dom.

*LAUGH* ... and those on who Ventouse suction and forceps are used are at the edgier end of our spectrums?

ps. it's nice to be back. too much work is a bad bad thing.

(in reply to Estring)

Profile

Post #: 20