submisives they become or they are born with it?

[baby_slut]

i have always wonder my self why i am this way if i had such a normal life... and havent been able to figure it out hope some one knows a lil bit more of this :)

[symphony]

interesting question, the whole nature/nurture debate is never really answered. I personally would lean towards nurture as if you were born a sub that would imply that there was a submissive gene, and therefore it would be passed down through the generations, there is not a great deal of evidence to support this in my own family.

However i do know that i have leaned towards a submissive nature as far back as i can remember. So the truth is I have no idea! I would be interested in other peoples thoughts

[good_girl]

I don't think it's any different than enjoying vanilla ice cream over rocky road...we like what we like simple as that....if our ancestors liked a certain flavor that doesn't dictate that we will like it as well but we might...if we grew up only ever tasting rocky road then the taste of vanilla might leave us bored, an acquired taste.

For me personally I grew up only tasting vanilla, and I was always bored with it, one day I got a taste of the rocky road and wow!!! Definitely nature for me...btw, my childhood would be what is considered very normal.

[sinfulsex]

this may be on a tangent a bit but here goes,

the diathesis-stress model may be a way to look at this, or at least a variation of it. this model suggests that someone is genetically pre-disposed to a certain trait but it is the environment that triggers the traits to be expressed.

at first i thought this was a good way to describe it because it is an interactionalist approach to nature and nurture but the more i think about it how can submission be genetic? how is it possible to have a gene for submissiveness?

so that brings you around to the nurture argument. i have ALWAYS had a normal up bringing so why would i be drawn to something, for want of a better word, kinky?

but then on the other hand looking back i can see my kinks being so obvious when i was v young so meh, my answer is, you cant know, there isnt an answer!!!!

sinful
x

[denuseri]

I have allways liked to think of it like this:

We are all born with different qualities that in some cases and situations etc make us more or less submissive or dominant than in others.

For example mothers and fathers are often dominant over thier children.

The police officer who pulls me over for speeding is holding at least temporary dominance over me (or any one else that gets pulled over lol).

When teaching class at school I am dominant over my students.

When kneeling before my Owner He is dominant over me.

[baby_slut]

thank you everyone!!:):)

[good_girl]

I have allways liked to think of it like this:

We are all born with different qualities that in some cases and situations etc make us more or less submissive or dominant than in others.

For example mothers and fathers are often dominant over thier children.

The police officer who pulls me over for speeding is holding at least temporary dominance over me (or any one else that gets pulled over lol).

When teaching class at school I am dominant over my students.

When kneeling before my Owner He is dominant over me.

I like how you put this, very concise and to the point but it does raise this question...why do some choose to find a partner who is dominant over them when they could look for a partner who is submissive to them? This I believe is the original question and this I believe is where our nature comes into play.

[jonnyi's_nia]

Before I was married there was no way I could have been submissive. Even when we were first married. I was too strong willed and stubborn to let any man have control over me. But as time grew on, before I ever discovered bdsm, I realized that my JonnyI should be the head of house, and that I should stop trying to be. (It's a lot more complicated than that, this is the condensed version lol) So no, I don't think that you are "born" submissive. I think it is a learned trait.

[StormKat]

At least for me, it's also a matter of the other person (or persons) involved in the situation. I have a submissive side, but it takes a very alpha male to bring it out, let alone to keep me under his control. Yet I exercise an appropriate level of dominion over my own boy, who is just starting his journey into submission. The tendency to acknowledge another's dominance is part of a natural hierarchy structure but developing it, and deepening it, requires nurturing.

So I guess I'm going to say it's a combination of nature, nurture, and circumstance. :cool:

[denuseri]

I like how you put this, very concise and to the point but it does raise this question...why do some choose to find a partner who is dominant over them when they could look for a partner who is submissive to them? This I believe is the original question and this I believe is where our nature comes into play.

ahhh now there is the rub GoodGirl winks

Something inside me allways brought me back to seeking that special someone who would dominant me.

No matter how many times I left this way of life or what had happened to make me leave I have allways returned like a moth to the flame as if by instinct.

In that I honestly do believe it is in our natures for at least some if not all of us that are awakened to the joys of domination and submission.

[mzkkbprmt]

I would say a mixture of both, that is how it is with msot of these things. When it comes to being born with it - I would suggest a genetic tendency towards being submissive and perhaps a tendency of a sexual reaction with it. However, there are plenty of vanilla couples who do a little bit of D/s activities and also plenty of submissive people who don't derive pleasure from it.

Environment can effect it in a number of ways. Get locked in a tight space as a child and you could develop claustrophobia - or it could be something you enjoyed. This could develop into an interest in bondage. Particularly strict parents could mean that you end up looking for dominant characters. Or maybe in later life - a partner who is dominant in an entirely vanilla way could cause you to search for in later relationships, perhaps becoming more sexual.

Also, what exposure do you have to it. When I was a child I read books that in an entirely none sexual way had maltreatment in them. Nothing unsuitable for my age, but things that could feed into BDSM. I have now become a denzien of the internet and come across all manner of fetishes. In particular, before I joined here I was still a member of an adult baby/diaper lover site. It was talking to some subs on that site that reawakened my own subbie feelings that I had sort of lost once I went into puberty. Less contact with the concepts may stop something like this developing.


I would say there is a genetic tendancy, but a particular environment is required for it too occur, and with a particularly strong 'sub encouraging environment' someone might become a sub to some degree, even without the genetic tendancy.


On a personal note, as an adult baby I enjoyed some things that would be considered submissive or humiliating before I considered myself into BDSM. While the pleasure I derive from it is emotional and relaxing, not sexual, it is also possible that the nature of it itself led me to developing a 'sexual counterpart' to this emotional non sexual part of me.

[IAN 2411]

I believe that no person is born a submissive, and in this thread the saying “You are what you are,” does not count. The fact is everyone is born with the same genes and qualities in them, and it is how you are moulded through your infant days; that determines your roll in life. Apart from the few, meaning the bullies or the bullied, i doubt that any person knows whether they are Dom or sub until they are at least in their late teens. It is at about that point when i think we all fall into our comfort zone, or maybe just know what it is. There is no real answer to the question asked, because there are too many questions to the question. If while in the forces i am ordered to kick ass and i kick ass, does that make me a Dom while kicking ass or a sub for doing as i was ordered? If a slave or sub says to her Master, “May i do this for you, or can i do that to you Master” and the Master answers yes sweetness or whatever to keep her happy. Who is domineering and who is submitting, no prizes for the answers? Just a few thoughts i have had on the same subject.

Regards Ian

[FirstBorn]

Clearly genetics cant be a huge part.
If it were so the people living in former long time dictatorships or comming from a slave background would show significant sub tendencies. Since assertive or dominant population would be reduced. Atleast thats my assumption.

I have seen some tendency towards both sub and dom's having been bullied as children but that could be for being different and not an actual cause.

Personally i had rather dominant parents and a somewhat absent father. My sub have a dominant mother but really a "normal" father. I recall fantasies of torturing and humilliating people as far back as i can remember (age 5-6). But back then my ideas of having victims restrained on conveyers and fantasising about their fear wasnt sexual pr say.

[Wiscoman]

I just wanted to respond to this:


at first i thought this was a good way to describe it because it is an interactionalist approach to nature and nurture but the more i think about it how can submission be genetic? how is it possible to have a gene for submissiveness?

We all have behaviors bred into us; they're instinct. Different species have different instincts and those instincts evolved somehow. I think it's entirely possible for submission or dominance to be genetic. Remember, we're never at the end of evolution, we're always in the middle of it.

I'm not saying it is or isn't genetic, I'm just saying that it's possible that it is.

[FirstBorn]

Well i allready said i doubt the genetics but Wiscoman stated that thing about being in the middle of evolution.
Well thats true but evolution in the darwinistic sense meens change happens over noumerous generations. Thus evolving from sub parents to hypercontrolling dom, is a contradiction of evolution and genetics as an explanation.

Studying people i have noticed that some tend towards submissive behavior in all or most aspects of life. Following leaders, experts and dominant features. Clearly this is a survival strategy of sorts, keep your head down and people are more likely to accept your shortcommings.

But humans are born with way underdeveloped intellect and hardly any skills compared to most other spiecies. With brains developing untill age 22 or so and sexual maturety pretty late in this development.

An indication that people can indeed have their sexual preferences imprinted on them would be how phobias work. A common statement on phobias is that alot of american skyscrapers were built by prarie indians. Why? because having never been to tall places before a pretty late age theyr not afraid of heights (well thats how it was back in the day). Most studies on phobias claims they stem from learning emotional responses from parents (moms mainly as i recall it) So if your with your mom at an early age and she has what you interpit as a fearful reaction to spiders, height og whatever. Youll pick up that reaction because since she reacted so strongly its obviusly important to your survival.

Well if thats how phobias work, why wouldnt a more complex form of the same be true for surviving in the community, part of that being relationships. That is seing a strategy (like submitting) and considering it succesfull perhaps at a wery early age is all it takes. Sometimes seing a strategy fail will have you do the opposite later on either taking inspiration from the "winning" side or simply learning that that didnt work same way as we learn lots of other things.

I dont have final answers, but i highly doubt genetics as that would indicate the possibility of breeding dominance or submission into a population same way as youd breed horses. History has multiple examples of societies with class based mating and severe punishment for attempting to go above ones class. Thus favoring submission in the lower classes and dominance in the higher. Really that didnt leed to a submissive lower class in europe not permanently so atleast, plenty of other features could have been bred into europeans during that time. Atleast going by how many generations horse or dog breeding takes.

As for the sometimes wer sub sometimes dom perspective. True but taking on roles and setting aside our nature is pretty much how we became a dominant species on earth. That does not imply that we cant have a basic nature that we fall back on when relaxed. Personally id say we have varying degrees of dom or sub personality, possibly mainly one of the two but rarely exclusively.

[Miner]

Well i allready said i doubt the genetics but Wiscoman stated that thing about being in the middle of evolution.
Well thats true but evolution in the darwinistic sense meens change happens over noumerous generations. Thus evolving from sub parents to hypercontrolling dom, is a contradiction of evolution and genetics as an explanation.

A misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution there, FirstBorn. Also, a severe misunderstanding of evolution and genetics in general. I'd refer you to Mendellson's work as an introduction to the concept of genetics and the passing on of traits.


Studying people i have noticed that some tend towards submissive behavior in all or most aspects of life. Following leaders, experts and dominant features. Clearly this is a survival strategy of sorts, keep your head down and people are more likely to accept your shortcommings.

But humans are born with way underdeveloped intellect and hardly any skills compared to most other spiecies. With brains developing untill age 22 or so and sexual maturety pretty late in this development.

Nonsense! Most human behaviour is learned (we do have some instinctive behaviours though). Most other animals work on a mainly instinctive level, and learn only a few behaviours. Though I must admit that the evidence of learned behaviours in most species is staggering.

Submission and dominance are most likely instinctual and associated with our "instinctive herd/pack behaviour". How much submission/dominance a person evicences is also likely mainly generic. Some will be learned (exemplary learning from the people who surrounded you when you were very small - parents, aunties and uncles, grandparents) some likely just depends on the types and orientations of specific genetic fragments. No, no one has gone looking for a "dominance" gene, nor will anyoine look for such a thing, since it is unlikely to have as distinct and on/off feature as eye colour or such.

[/QUOTE]An indication that people can indeed have their sexual preferences imprinted on them would be how phobias work. A common statement on phobias is that alot of american skyscrapers were built by prarie indians. Why? because having never been to tall places before a pretty late age theyr not afraid of heights (well thats how it was back in the day). Most studies on phobias claims they stem from learning emotional responses from parents (moms mainly as i recall it) So if your with your mom at an early age and she has what you interpit as a fearful reaction to spiders, height og whatever. Youll pick up that reaction because since she reacted so strongly its obviusly important to your survival.[/QUOTE]

Most of the skyscrapers had Mohawk workforces (they are an Eastern Woodlands nation, nor prairie), and it had nopthing to do with phobias and everything to do with a genetic tendency towards a superb sense of balance and lack of fear of heights.

I discounted the rest of your argument as being based on false premises.

[FirstBorn]

this is odd. Darwin noted that some turtles had evolved appendages to fit certain tasks (then procedded with eating the turtles destroying the evidence). Try as i may im unable to grow tentacles thus evolving in that sense would imply breeding on tentacle like features for a pretty long time. That does not exclude the opportunity for a sudden mutation but im really not counting on my children having tentacles.

I claim that we are born with few personality traits or skills. This you dispute by saying most is learned... We agreed in the first place!!!

You go on saying that dom/sub tendencies relate to pack mentality, basically repeating what i said about surviving by fitting in.

I may be misinformed about indians, you said "and lack of fear of heights." Fear of heights constitutes a phobia even if possibly a keen sense of balance would limit phobic tendencies. Phobias however makes absolutely no sense as a genetic trait. Atleast thatd contradict children adopted from greenland being afraid of snakes, unless its indeed common genetic memory going back to before eskimo's first wandred there. That thou would contradict the rapid evolution i think you opposed my darwin argument with earlier.

[Miner]

this is odd. Darwin noted that some turtles had evolved appendages to fit certain tasks (then procedded with eating the turtles destroying the evidence). Try as i may im unable to grow tentacles thus evolving in that sense would imply breeding on tentacle like features for a pretty long time. That does not exclude the opportunity for a sudden mutation but im really not counting on my children having tentacles.

I claim that we are born with few personality traits or skills. This you dispute by saying most is learned... We agreed in the first place!!!

You go on saying that dom/sub tendencies relate to pack mentality, basically repeating what i said about surviving by fitting in.




Mutation and evolution work against each other. Mutation is rarely beneficial. Evolutionary steps tend to be small (in as much as they are a modification of something already in place) rather than radical and different. The radically different changes (mutations) tend to be lethal because they do not allow breathing room for the organism to adapt properly.

Radical divergences from the norm are also usually not beneficial.

In terms of learned behaviour versus instinct. You missed my point. Most human behaviour is learned. Some human behaviours (pack instinct being one of them) are intrinsic (and instinctive) though they may be modified by learned behaviour (conditioning).

The fact that pack instinct is just that is merely an indication that some lower-order behaviours tend to be instinctive. Mistaking post-natal modification through conditioning as indication an either-or relationship with a behaviour is a common fallicy.

Your comments about phobias making no genetic sense needs a rethought. It makes emminent sense in terms of ensuring the long-term viability of the organism. An absence of caution is much more lethal than an excess of caution.

[FirstBorn]

right, lets put phobias aside and discuss common ground.

Yes id agree that seeking out other humans and forming packs of sorts is a natural instinct.

How we conform in packs thou cant be all instincts and even if so. it does not explain a 7 foot athlete submitting or a scrawny dom. If pack mentality were indeed all there was to it we would all or most of us, in some mannor give domination a try and upon failure we would submit, till we see signs of weakness and give it a second go.

I have met few people that i belived to be all dom or sub. Even if they were telling the truth (could be unaware of some issues) i still put it down to upbringing over genetics.

Simply because submitting by genetics does not promote success or mating in a pack of animals and thus would have been bred out long ago.

Possibly now that i think about it. If we bred women to be submissive because this promoted pack/society stability, one could argument that male subs are simply a form of men seeking female roles. Not unlike homosexuals or transvestites... Best not get carried away with that idea.

[denuseri]

Actually we as human beingings have a lot more instinct than we wish to give ourselves credit for; just as animals have a much larger degree of learned behavior traits than previously were thought to exisit.

An axiom of medical science and is "Structure = Function". Its the basis for erudation in allmost all of biology (not to mention chemistry and physics) from the micro to the macro.

All things that are biological entities (including human behavior learned or instinctual or otherwise) has a physical structure or interaction between structures within the body that represents its paticular function, including as we have recently come to find out "memories" "feelings" "thoughts" etc etc.

By that standard, any instinctual behaviors (mental functions/including reflexive and muscle motor function as well as limbic activity) is included "during construction" of said body and all other things that come after construction is complete (long and short term memories, pattern/ sence and recognition faculties, and any recallable data nessesary to function or plan ahead etc) would be "learned".

Of course not every part of the body matures and completes being constructed at the same rate, some parts dont finnish at all and even keep going for a time after the rest of the body has ceased to function etc.

The capacity for dominant or submissive behavior can be compared as being both "learned" and "instinctal" to some degree or another by defualt on medical explanation, but it can be very dificult to pin down and define just how much of the behavior being exhibited by any one individual is directly as a result of insticnt as opposed to learned responce.

The more we find out in biology and medicine about how the human brain functions the more we start to realize that "instinct" and "learned responce" behaviors are not nessesarally the key; much of what is thought to seperate man from the beasts resides in our evolution of a structural change in learning capacity.

Speculative food for thought.

Is there a "submission gene"? Well is there a gene that governs any other behaviors or personality patterns? Some scientists believe that every single human behavior etc will eventually be able to one day be explained on the basis of structure equalling function.

If that is what proves to be the case once they do, its highly likely that such a gene or other structure is indeed present within all of us to one degree or another.

Oh, btw "testosterone" and how much one has of it, have been directly linked to "aggression" (a dominant characteristic in some peoples oppinion).

[ravenbounduptight]

First, i have come to the understanding there is no normal, there is each person doing what they do for their own reasons. To provide for themselves, to give themselves happiness, ect.

now i look back on it, i don't think it's one or the other but both. i'll use my horse examples. i could have a race horse with great lines born to run, but hey i don't feel like racing, so i'm going to train him to jump. He breed to race but i trained him to do something else. On the other hand i could have trail horse and (if the conditions were right) take him and make him a great race horse with training and time. i think the same goes a bit for humans. we're born with traits, a whole big set of them. our families, friends, life takes those traits and shapes them. (then we end up looking back and saying how did i get that fucked up? lol)

But i don't think one or the other is stronger in making us the way we are, it's how we process it and figure things out that make us...us.

~j~

[wykked_lil_angl]

Ok, I have never posted here before, and I usually prefer to remain in the background, but I am curious...
wow... I always thought there were certian qualities everyone was born with that steers them more towards being a leader, a.k.a. Dominant, or a follower, a.k.a., submissive... Never really thought about it as anything else, it's a different concept for me. I , for instance am the only member of my family to have these qualities, am the youngest of 4, 2 of whom had similar things happen to them, altho, it was at a much earlier age for me. I have always delighted in giving. Not one to have to have anything in return, just to see the pleasure on the face of another. Unfortunately, this has had quite a few drawbacks, as I am quite easily taken advantage of..therefore, I guard my inner-self as much as possible. I could comply with those who say that molestation as a child does sometimes bring these characteristics to the forefront, however, as I was molested by a family member at the tender age of 4, and once again by a different family member at the age of 8. So there is that possibility as well. But yet, here again, 2 of my siblings had similar instances, and they do not even have a 10th of the submissive traits that I have. And being the youngest of 4 girls, my father raised us to depend on ourselves.. I choose to give control to another, and gain an intense amount of pleasure from just a simple "good girl"....so.....I am curious to see what anyone would make of my situation..would you consider it genetic? or family environment? What category would I fall under?

[denuseri]

As perviously mentioned above I believe its both lil angl.

[IAN 2411]

Ok, I have never posted here before, and I usually prefer to remain in the background, but I am curious...
wow... I always thought there were certian qualities everyone was born with that steers them more towards being a leader, a.k.a. Dominant, or a follower, a.k.a., submissive... Never really thought about it as anything else, it's a different concept for me. I , for instance am the only member of my family to have these qualities, am the youngest of 4, 2 of whom had similar things happen to them, altho, it was at a much earlier age for me. I have always delighted in giving. Not one to have to have anything in return, just to see the pleasure on the face of another. Unfortunately, this has had quite a few drawbacks, as I am quite easily taken advantage of..therefore, I guard my inner-self as much as possible. I could comply with those who say that molestation as a child does sometimes bring these characteristics to the forefront, however, as I was molested by a family member at the tender age of 4, and once again by a different family member at the age of 8. So there is that possibility as well. But yet, here again, 2 of my siblings had similar instances, and they do not even have a 10th of the submissive traits that I have. And being the youngest of 4 girls, my father raised us to depend on ourselves.. I choose to give control to another, and gain an intense amount of pleasure from just a simple "good girl"....so.....I am curious to see what anyone would make of my situation..would you consider it genetic? or family environment? What category would I fall under?


I am not an expert but I have beliefs, one being the brain is still being programmed up to the age ten, much like a computer. Being molested at the age of 4 and again at the age of 8 must have an effect on the way you think, and that in itself would do one of two things. Your brain would tell you to, either be submissive and stay safe, or be aggressive and fight back and dominate your aggressor. This is not fact but I think there is a sound argument in that statement, and it works for me. Try reading denuseri,’s thread [victims of abuse support for submissives] there might be in the many posts the very answer your looking for.

Regards ian 2411

[lucva]

hi,
i am 23 yo now.
i grow up in a men's world: my daddy and my two brothers.
my daddy was very strict in my education, but also very gentle.
as long as i know, i have allways had submissive feelings and fantasies: in my dreams, i my daydreams, i my dairy, in my fantasystories and scenes. nurture or nature?
i am who i am...
and i love the person who i am ...
a young woman with strong submissive feelings ans needs.
i am happy now...
thats important to me.
little kiss
lucva

[13'sbadkitty]

i watched this thing on one of the science channels about serotonin and baboons. apparently the dominant male of the troop had very high levels and submissive baboons lower levels. When they increased serotonin in submissive baboons there dominance increased and as alpha males lost their positions their levels dropped in response. The scientists messed with this back and forth and the same results followed. i can not take ssri's as they make me aggressive. i am a submissive yet get very dominant and challenging on anything that increases my serotonin. i like ian was saying had an abusive childhood, yet in my household as i reached adolescence stood up to one abuser(she became intimidated) and stood toe to toe with the other who would not capitulate and i moved out at 15. i find that i am calmer when in the presence of an alpha who is not abusive and i get aggressive in the presence of one who it. it would seem that it all plays a part in why i am submissive, and also when i am not why that too.

[spicennice]

So then, do seratonin levels raise due to a situation or is it a random/biological thing only? I, as well, left home very early due to abuse. I have recently been involved in a light bdsm relationship and found that the power exchange, without the fear of having to 'protect' myself from abusive behaviour allowed me to accept my submissive tendancies whereas before I was constantly fighting to prove to myself that I was completely independent and needed nobody. I liked and felt comforted by the power exchange when it was presented to me in a non-threatening manner. I felt at peace. I am still trying to understand it as I spent so many years protecting myself. Did that in fact, raise my seratonin levels?

[13'sbadkitty]

So then, do seratonin levels raise due to a situation or is it a random/biological thing only? I, as well, left home very early due to abuse. I have recently been involved in a light bdsm relationship and found that the power exchange, without the fear of having to 'protect' myself from abusive behaviour allowed me to accept my submissive tendancies whereas before I was constantly fighting to prove to myself that I was completely independent and needed nobody. I liked and felt comforted by the power exchange when it was presented to me in a non-threatening manner. I felt at peace. I am still trying to understand it as I spent so many years protecting myself. Did that in fact, raise my seratonin levels?

the study was only about dominance; they did actually see a drop in serotonin levels when a dominant baboon fell from his alpha position. i myself feel calmer in my relationship with my Master and the more power He has been given, the deeper into TPE W/we are the calmer i feel. i don't know if that means what for whatever neuro stuff in my brain. i have made an attempt to stop questioning it and just try to enjoy it.

i have been glad to see that other subs have questioned it though, as my Master says He has never questioned His dominant tendencies at all. He has just accepted that He was happier this way. i have been slowly accepting my submission for what it is. i think all the social stuff about submission makes people feel bad for who they are. i would imagine it is way harder for male submissives than me. i don't know.

[wettoy]

I can tell you, It has always been my nature to please and to try and follow my gut and logic to do right. Not to mention, as a child playing with toys, I always have dreamed of being bound and being taken. even before I knew what taken was.

I also had a conversation today with a fellow here,
He said the subs are socially developed and slaves are born

he also believed, the the same applies with masters and doms, the doms are socially developed and masters are born.

So knowing what all I crave that others do not, is extreme ( not measured by pain) but measured in giving and receiving.

[elleearly]

I have read all the ideas put forward, and the words I think, that are missing, are sex and love. Masters, subs, spanking and all the rest are sexual, and we have no control over what turns us on. If there was 2 downloads available to me, one being a S&M movie, the other being a full length porn movie, full of celebs, but I could only have one. Every time I would go for the S&M, because its what I like.
So if inside you, you have sub tendancies, but the man you marry is not a dom, your sexuality will feel unfufilled, and the same for the other way around. But if you have a sub personality, and you meet and fall in love with a dom, the sex will be fantastic.
The last thing I will say is, if a sub female marries a sub male, the relationship will be terrible. I have seen it. Mick

[Fiera]

I knew as early as 5 years of age and my son exudes a strong liking for it though I have not discussed it with him. I could see it in him as young as 3 years of age. He acutally continues to exhibit a pretty strong form of play for his age.

I believe it has to do with your perception of sensory. He associates a spank on the but with play since I played with him like that. Just a pat you know, nothing much, but I never spanked him. I believe that lecturing and negotiation are better alternatives because he is smart. But you see that meant he was wired to believe that spank means fun and laughing and mom's in a good mood. Not hit = hurt and I hate it.

That is just what it seems like. Who knows.

[daddiesslavegirl]

i dont know if i was born to be a slave,but i first became aware of it when i was 12 or 13,being bullied in school used to turn me on,and from then on was always looking forward to it

[subrob99]

I believe this is something you are born with. Some are meant to lead and others are meant to serve those who lead.

now that i have been on this site awhile there were signs before that point to being totally submissive.

[sub10]

Wjen I was young, my cousin used to make me strip naked and she would ride me like a horse. She would direct me by pulling on my cock. She would make me lay across her lap while she played with me. I would have to lick her pussy while her friends watched. I am submissive and don't know if this has something to do with it.

[sub10]

When I was young, my cousin used to make me strip naked and she would ride me like a horse. She directed me where to go by pulling on my cock. She would make me lay naked across her lap while she played with me in front of her friends. She made me lick her pussy while her friends watched. I had to masturbate in front of her friends and then eat my cum. I think that this made me submissive to this day.

[thir]

I doubt it would have had that effect if the tendency had not already been there.

[sub10]

I am sure that you are right. It sure heightened my awarness of this need to submit.

[didoanna]

I think, to be totally honest, that to be really submissive, rather than just 'acting it', somewhere inside you there has to be a little 'nugget' of true submissive / non-pushyness so that in certain circumstances you already indentify with the submissive side of the situation.

And because of that 'auto-indentification', it feels natural. Yes, I agree maybe, the submissiveness can be 'honed' to a 'fine edge' but that inital desire / strong association with the role of submissive also has to be there.

[Xmaster1]

Ok granted I am coming from the opposite side and I apologize if this is unwelcome here.

Who really knows if it is born or learned. I loved the dom side of things since I can remember but in real life I am very laid back and don't have to be the leader all the time. Although my uncle once said I had a daddy complex and always had to be in charge. Hmm, I had forgotten that. Well I guess I am pretty laid back as long as I get my way. I don't bully people, but I always stood up to the bullies, got beat up a few times but they didn't pick on me for long or anyone I was around. I don't have to be Steve Jobs, I can work for him just fine but then again don't try to micro manage me, leave me alone and I will get the work done. I can't say there is a dominant gene or a submissive gene but I do suspect there are combinations that lead a person to be not submissive or not dominant.

just my .$02 worth

[thamlin]

i feel it is somewhat borned and learnd. it depends on your parents before you were born wicth way you will lean then it depends on how you are raised as a child

[Misschief]

As I previously stated in another thread, my earliest masturbation material, at age 8, was strongly power-exchange based.. I had no prior experience sexually.. I was submissive in my early fantasies which engendered my dominant tendencies later in life..
I understand and enjoy power-exchange from the submissive stand-point.. Always have..