Is Dom/sub natural or learned?

[briansmine]

brian and I are in a constant debate here lately over whether you can learn to be dominant or whether it has to come naturally or not at all. I maintain that it's a constant learning environment that requires a change in my thinking. I wasn't brought up to know exactly what I want and then go get it. I was brought up much more passive-aggressively.

He maintains that there has to be an underlying tendency to be dominant to really be dominant all the time.

We're trying to move to a more 24/7 D/s relationship. It isn't an easy thing at all and we're struggling. He keeps trying to revert to "you aren't a natural at this and I'm getting hurt here, let's just keep it kinky". I'm of the attitude that this isn't going to be an easy transition and he's not getting out of it by giving up.

He doesn't feel taken care of or that the significance of what I'm offering is valued. I am trying to explain that the significance and responsibility is so great and I don't completely understand it(any more than he does, he gets frustrated when pressed) and that it's going to be a muddle until we get the kinks worked out(worked in?).

He seems to think that since he's laying himself bare to me, it should be easy to step up and take over and that I'm failing him.

I just need some help here. I don't want to be failing him, but I don't think it's as easy for me as he seems to think. This is something I very much want, just keep stubbing my toe and his soul trying to get it.

E

[briansmine]

A similar question with a scenario illustrating a typical soul-stubbing is under the "Questions for a Mistress" board if you could read both and respond here.

E

[rce]

I firmly believe that being dominant or submissive is something you are born and in part raised to be. Anyone can learn how to dominate, but you have tohave a natural talent for it to be really good at it.

Compare it to the everyday life. Some people are just natural born leaders, others are natural born followers. A natural born leader does not have to be really intelligent or know much about anything, it is just his/her attitude that is a leader's attitude.

Everything you do, you have to learn it. However, there is always an element of talent that you are born with. Virtually anybody can learn how to play a violin, play football, or calculate the orbit of a satellite. There are, however, only a few who are really talented and who become great. Why would sexual dominance be any different?

[briansmine]

Ah, but is it necessary to be "great" at all times to be a 24/7 dominant? Is anyone great at all times, or is Wonder Woman really a comic book character and the rest of us mere mortals?

I see what he's offering and I want it, I just am stumbling in getting it. Maybe it's shirking my responsibility to want him to cut me some slack.

I have been thinking a lot on it, and I think I'm stressing out over the hugeness of it. That like losing weight or planning a vacation or any other big important project it's more manageable to think in smaller chunks. Where this doesn't have an end/finish date, but there are goals to set and attain.

I'd still appreciate any input, as I do need a sounding board other than him. He's getting frustrated, rightly so, with my seeming dithering and shirking.

E

[vampyres{ID}]

I firmly believe that being dominant or submissive is something you are born and in part raised to be. Anyone can learn how to dominate, but you have tohave a natural talent for it to be really good at it.

Compare it to the everyday life. Some people are just natural born leaders, others are natural born followers. A natural born leader does not have to be really intelligent or know much about anything, it is just his/her attitude that is a leader's attitude.

Everything you do, you have to learn it. However, there is always an element of talent that you are born with. Virtually anybody can learn how to play a violin, play football, or calculate the orbit of a satellite. There are, however, only a few who are really talented and who become great. Why would sexual dominance be any different?

I find the whole idea of good and great in this area insulting and elitist actually. This is to personal of an idea for any Universal good and great. A Great Dom/me to a pain slut sub wouldn't be one with who is only lightly sadistic (This in no way makes him/her an Untalented Dom/me or untalented sub), vice versa and so on and so forth. Such as any relationship, there is no universal ideal of perfection in a person, what one person sees as the perfect woman/man is another person’s nightmare. (This is a human relationship, the good and great of it lies in the mind of the human, even a talented leader can not lead them all, since BDSM doesn't lie on the worlds stage, it lies in the hearts and minds of the participating parties good and great doesn't apply past the good and great given by the person/s participating)

[TomOfSweden]

Ah, but is it necessary to be "great" at all times to be a 24/7 dominant? Is anyone great at all times, or is Wonder Woman really a comic book character and the rest of us mere mortals?

Allowing yourself to show weakness I'd say is an important quality in a Dom. Nobody is a superhero and anybody who feels they need to be just haven't got "it".

I don't like the term "natural", because it's a nonsense term. It's just value judgement and has nothing to do with which qualities are inborn, but rather, which qualities the speaker believes the majority aprove of/are normal.

I think feeling comfortable about having a 24/7 slave needs a very special kind of person. I think this is learned, but at a very young age. There's no dominance or alpha-male gene identified and I wouldn't hold my breath for science to find it ever. I think we've got very little control over it and once we've reached puberty it's pretty set in stone and we couldn't come over to the Master side, no matter how hard we tried.

If we belong to the group who enjoy having a slave around we can learn to be better Masters. That's an ever on-going process.

My two cents.

[TomOfSweden]

I find the whole idea of good and great in this area insulting and elitist actually. This is to personal of an idea for any Universal good and great. A Great Dom/me to a pain slut sub wouldn't be one with who is only lightly sadistic (This in no way makes him/her an Untalented Dom/me or untalented sub), vice versa and so on and so forth. Such as any relationship, there is no universal ideal of perfection in a person, what one person sees as the perfect woman/man is another person’s nightmare. (This is a human relationship, the good and great of it lies in the mind of the human, even a talented leader can not lead them all, since BDSM doesn't lie on the worlds stage, it lies in the hearts and minds of the participating parties good and great doesn't apply past the good and great given by the person/s participating)

"Goodness" or being better has nothing to do with it. Only our basic human social needs. We like sorting ourselves into hierachies. We wan't to find our place in life. We have no need to be on top, only to be heard and get our opinions validated by our peers. It's pure instinct. The monkey part of our brains.

Nietsche was the first to float these ideas and there's nothing elitist at all in his concept of the "over-man". Not if you read it critically. Cleaning out humanist and old dusty Christian moral values and wouldn't hurt though. I think it would be easier to see the big picture if you do.

Humans aren't equal because we don't want to be. Some enjoy being dominated and some enjoy being in control. All of us. Even the ones who aren't into BDSM. See, being a better person has nothing to do with it. I think my slave is a better person than me. She's a lot smarter, for one. But she enjoys submitting to me, which is why we work.

[Kishi]

I think there's a difference between a tendency to be dominant and a capacity for it. You, quite obviously, need the latter to be a Dom, but not necessarily the former, and I've seen some folks with the former who would, quite probably, be terrible at it- a tendency to be dominant can also translate as "abrasive and pushy."

[briansmine]

Kishi - Hmmm, capacity vs. tendency, interesting. I would say that I'm not pushy or abrasive, but not a push-over either. I can be easily persuaded though, sometimes I listen to brian's protests a little too well. If as the capacity to be a domme means a willingness and desire to be open-minded, to learn, to grow, and to understand, then that's me. I want to be loving but firm and tend a little towards either a little too loving or a little too firm(read obnoxiously demanding). I know I could use a dose of confidence. I don't like failing him, but if I'm doing what I really want to be doing, is that failing him?

TomofSweden - Do I feel comfortable with a 24/7 slave? Not yet, but I want to be very much or I wouldn't be bouncing ideas around. Does brian feel comfortable? Not yet, but he badly wants to be. I know he feels very vulnerable and very alone, which makes me sad. One thing that occurred to me that might help is defining what would be different and what would be the same. We already have many things that he has no knowledge or control over(money being the biggest). What more would be added? What's missing now?

Vampyres brian and I are very compatible as friends and as lovers, but sometimes I do think we're a bit of a BDSM mismatch. For example, when I switch to sub(rarely anymore), I want to be rewarded, praised, and "be the good girl". Brian when he is sub, wants more and more, deeper and darker, but he knows he can't be fileted and bbq'd in his head, so he's at a cross-purpose. He'll act out wanting attention and that'll turn me off instead of on.

I really do appreciate the feedback. Keep it coming. I want to figure it out and stop the cycle of crashes.

E

[Kishi]

I can sympathize- I'm learning to a Dom (so I hope it isn't only inborn!) and one of my problems early on was a tendency to hold back and trust that I wasn't going to do something to hurt my girl. I've done better lately, I think, and we're enjoying it.

I don't know if it'd help too much, but something that might give you an idea would be to consider how he acted when you were subbing? It might give you some ideas about what he's looking for from his Dom.

[vampyres{ID}]

"Goodness" or being better has nothing to do with it. Only our basic human social needs. We like sorting ourselves into hierachies. We wan't to find our place in life. We have no need to be on top, only to be heard and get our opinions validated by our peers. It's pure instinct. The monkey part of our brains.

Nietsche was the first to float these ideas and there's nothing elitist at all in his concept of the "over-man". Not if you read it critically. Cleaning out humanist and old dusty Christian moral values and wouldn't hurt though. I think it would be easier to see the big picture if you do.

Humans aren't equal because we don't want to be. Some enjoy being dominated and some enjoy being in control. All of us. Even the ones who aren't into BDSM. See, being a better person has nothing to do with it. I think my slave is a better person than me. She's a lot smarter, for one. But she enjoys submitting to me, which is why we work.

Hehe I love Nietzsche, but I think you were misunderstanding my meaning of good, my meaning of good had nothing to do with morality, but what benefits physical and psychological good of the persons involved. The needs of the person who is Dominating or submitting needs being met is a both physical and psychological good of the person as a whole. (I was pointing out these needs aren’t one size fits all, and what Satisfies one person needs, will not necessarily suit the needs of another. So saying he is a good/great Dominant/submissive or a Talented Dominant/submissive is a matter of personal choice not some universal law on what makes a good dominant and what makes a good submissive) Same goes for any great leader, Look behind every one of them and there is somebody to call him a tyrant or otherwise disparaging their rule, look behind every follower and you will find someone calling them a spineless coward or otherwise insulting the way they followed. We have the natural disposition to lead or follow but we still allow our personalities to pick and choose who we do.

[hisannabelle]

i look at it like this: i'm naturally good at english and humanities. i could be very good at math and science if i worked extremely hard at it. i'd personally much rather stick with what comes to me naturally and what i most enjoy, t hough. likewise, i'm naturally a submissive...i could work hard at it and possibly become a very good domme, and i have switched in the past, although not much and with very little experience...but i am most at home with my submissiveness.

i think it's possible to "learn" to act as a dominant or a submissive, but i think it's probably much better to gravitate towards what you are naturally...and i definitely think that there's a combination of nature/nurture that leads us to be who we are (submissive or dominant). it can go both ways.

[dynamicbuttler]

I was born a submissive. I will die a submissive. Simple as that. i have absolutely no desire to be dominant. This wasn't learned. I was born with it. For me it's as simple as being born gay or straight or black or white.

[phantasy_seeker]

Yes, I do believe that dominance needs to be a 'natural' thing. However, my definitions of natural might differ slightly from others'. To me, a 'natural' Dom simply means that he/she has the need deep inside to dominate. That's all. You don't have to be perfect right away, or ooze confidence, or know what to do all the time. You're human, after all. I, for one, certainly don't think that my own Dom is perfect (but he ain't reading this, so... *g*). Natural doms need to 'learn' too, especially from communication with their submissive.

What I see as the 'unnatural' Dom is someone who just wakes up one day and says "Wow BDSM seems like a hot subculture nowadays, I think I'll be a dom!". Or perhaps someone whose partner desperately wants them to dominate, and they do so purely to make their partner happy, deriving no satisfaction from it themselves.

To me, you sure do sound like a 'natural' Dom/me.

[Jim]

Yes, I do believe that dominance needs to be a 'natural' thing. However, my definitions of natural might differ slightly from others'. To me, a 'natural' Dom simply means that he/she has the need deep inside to dominate. That's all. You don't have to be perfect right away, or ooze confidence, or know what to do all the time. You're human, after all. I, for one, certainly don't think that my own Dom is perfect (but he ain't reading this, so... *g*). Natural doms need to 'learn' too, especially from communication with their submissive.

What I see as the 'unnatural' Dom is someone who just wakes up one day and says "Wow BDSM seems like a hot subculture nowadays, I think I'll be a dom!". Or perhaps someone whose partner desperately wants them to dominate, and they do so purely to make their partner happy, deriving no satisfaction from it themselves.

To me, you sure do sound like a 'natural' Dom/me.

sounds right on to me //..

[TomOfSweden]

TomofSweden - Do I feel comfortable with a 24/7 slave? Not yet, but I want to be very much or I wouldn't be bouncing ideas around. Does brian feel comfortable? Not yet, but he badly wants to be. I know he feels very vulnerable and very alone, which makes me sad. One thing that occurred to me that might help is defining what would be different and what would be the same. We already have many things that he has no knowledge or control over(money being the biggest). What more would be added? What's missing now?

I mean off-course, after the all the annoying inhibitions have been shed. That's always the first step in finding ones own sexuality. I'd say you two have plenty of exploring to do before you find yourselves. I personally am 100% dom. I know because I tried pretty much everything. But I still like playing around and challenging myself so now and again I'm submissive for fun. But it isn't really my thing and I couldn't do it for long.

Nothing makes me calmer and more at peace than having a slave who obeys my comands. I love hearing her screams when I whip or torture her. Also very calming. This is what did it for me.

[TomOfSweden]

Hehe I love Nietzsche, but I think you were misunderstanding my meaning of good, my meaning of good had nothing to do with morality, but what benefits physical and psychological good of the persons involved. The needs of the person who is Dominating or submitting needs being met is a both physical and psychological good of the person as a whole. (I was pointing out these needs aren’t one size fits all, and what Satisfies one person needs, will not necessarily suit the needs of another. So saying he is a good/great Dominant/submissive or a Talented Dominant/submissive is a matter of personal choice not some universal law on what makes a good dominant and what makes a good submissive) Same goes for any great leader, Look behind every one of them and there is somebody to call him a tyrant or otherwise disparaging their rule, look behind every follower and you will find someone calling them a spineless coward or otherwise insulting the way they followed. We have the natural disposition to lead or follow but we still allow our personalities to pick and choose who we do.

ok. I'll agree to this. All of it.

[rce]

Hehe I love Nietzsche, but I think you were misunderstanding my meaning of good, my meaning of good had nothing to do with morality, but what benefits physical and psychological good of the persons involved. The needs of the person who is Dominating or submitting needs being met is a both physical and psychological good of the person as a whole. (I was pointing out these needs aren’t one size fits all, and what Satisfies one person needs, will not necessarily suit the needs of another. So saying he is a good/great Dominant/submissive or a Talented Dominant/submissive is a matter of personal choice not some universal law on what makes a good dominant and what makes a good submissive) Same goes for any great leader, Look behind every one of them and there is somebody to call him a tyrant or otherwise disparaging their rule, look behind every follower and you will find someone calling them a spineless coward or otherwise insulting the way they followed. We have the natural disposition to lead or follow but we still allow our personalities to pick and choose who we do.

There are, of course, differences in what you like depending on whom you are. Someone who is a great leader in the eyes of person A, may be a rather good leader in the eyes of person B, and a lousy leader in the eyes of person C. The same goes for Doms. A Dom who is great for sub A, may be rather good for sub B, and lousy for sub C.

It was never my intention to imply that there are some people who are great Doms for every sub. My intention was simply to point out that being a great Dom is not only something you can learn, you have to be born and raised with qualities that fits your sub's view of a great Dom in order to become a great Dom for her (or him).

I hope I made myself more clear now.

[jennjenn]

nurture vs. nature ... i believe some of both are reasons for my own submission. Learning of my submission has been one of the most exciting things for me. I believe i have relatively well explored WHY? in my situation. Environment has played a large part in it. The curious thing is that my eldest son shows me signs of possible dominance all the time and has since he was two months old. At times this trait has gotten me to the point of pullling my hair out but that is another thread lol. My second son does not display these characteristics. I have been asking people about their birth order in the family. Though hardly conclusive at this point, the results have been interesting.

[lily27]

I think the determination of your role in D/s is an awful lot like sexual orientation. It is a compass, but not a roadmap.

With orientation, just because you are heterosexual doesn't automatically make you a good lover, or boyfriend/girlfriend, or spouse. You have to work at all of those things. Same situation if you are gay or bi. Just because you are inherently a Domme, doesn't mean you aren't going to have a lot of work to do.

I think that D/s roles are determined either at birth or sometime in childhood. I say this because I know many people that have tried different roles before they fell into the one that just feels right. It's the "coming home" feeling.

Also, although I would consider myself a sub by "nature" I was definitely "nurtured" to be much more Dommely. So sometimes I have to work quite hard at my submission.

A 24/7 relationship is a very substantial undertaking. There are going to be some rough patches. That is completely normal, and doesn't make either of you a failure. If you are both committed, willing to put in the hard work, and keep the lines of communication should be to work through it all.

I wish the best of luck to both of you.

[briansmine]

Thanks Jim and Phantasy Seeker, ya'll are sweet boys.

We had a few breakthroughs. One is that I should NOT treat brian as I'd want to be treated. To quote Tom of Sweden in the could you do what your sub does "No, that would hurt", I wouldn't WANT the things I do to brian. And the golden rule is out the window.

When I switch it's not deep at all, brian is always very loving and it's all things I enjoy, not anything that requires a leap of faith.

So I can't lure him in with the ways he can lure me. I can't think "o, well, he has to work, I won't distract him" because when I'm working, I don't want to be bothered. He craves the knowledge that he's still mine.

Which I sort of knew, but when it's something new or exciting or on my edge, I revert to what I would want. When i'm nervous and wanting something very much, the more afraid I am of being rejected and the less sure I become.

We'll get there. I appreciate everyone's words. The best is knowing the rough patches are normal, like lily said. As long as we can keep from killing each other...

E

[Hime]

I think that wanting to be Dominant or Submissive probably instilled in early childhood, but you absolutely have to learn to be good at them -- just like you have to learn to be a good partner in other aspects of a relationship.

[Sir_Russell]

As many have said here being a Dom or a sub and being good at it requires first that it is you naturally then you have to learn and work at it to develop the skill.

Those we call switches I really don't understand but my guess is that they aren't great at either role. This is just my sense of it not a fact since I learned my lesson once with a natural Domme that tried to be a slave for me. It didn't matter how much she wanted to be mine she just never could please the Dom in me.

Oh well.

[TomOfSweden]

Those we call switches I really don't understand but my guess is that they aren't great at either role.

I think there's very many levels to this. "doing it well"? How is it possible to fail, unless you aren't enjoying yourself? I think it hinges upon what it is you hope to achieve from the sex. I would call myself naturally dominant. I enjoy it and it needs no effort from my side. Being submissive and obedient, (like I am at work) takes effort, (but I think I'm because of my BDSM interests even better at it then all the sheep here, but never mind that).

I can still get turned on by the idea of being dominated and humiliated. I have some experience of it even. I'm not much of a slave because I don't enjoy it as much. That's simply what it's down to.

I understand switches. It's people who are either submissive or dominant who dabble in playing for the other team for fun. It might also be people who haven't found the comfortable station in life, but I'll stop speculating now before I hurt myself. I'm not going to say I understand it, but I do see many levels to this making skill impossible to measure.

[Sir_Russell]

Tom its your choice and your opinion and I will not fault you because you don't agree with me. I have made no secret that switches confuses me, I am a natural Dom and almost no sub in me, even at work.

[Ozme52]

This is one of those conversations that makes me break out my personal dictionary... (I say personal because I am the first to argue that putting labels on our roles is difficult. Our defintions may overlap, probably will... and it's around the edges that we could argue for a lifetime... that said...)

I have a lot of trouble understanding switches within the terms 'dominant' and 'submissive'... I think those are very much natural roles... though they can also be learned... or perhaps better to say refined.

I can more easily see and understand switching within the terms 'top' and 'bottom'. Enjoying the physical components of the various roles is understandable to me. But like Russell, I don't seem to have a submissive bone in my psyche and I don't understand how one could switch back and forth between dom and sub.

But just because I don't understand it... doesn't mean I don't recognize that others do understand and/or live it.

[annie]

Just to toss out my 2 cents worth (if it is even worth that much... )

I think Dom/Sub tendencies are natural, either be it by raising, personality, etc. it is a role/position that feels most comfortable to a person. Basically their "natural" state.

I personally think that any time a Dom or Sub is considered "learned" meaning they don't have the natural tendencies but are taught that role in some fashion that is normally equates to Topping/Bottoming. Hubby and I are a primary example. I am sub, to my core, and yet I can and do manage things regularly, because I was taught that and because more importantly because I was taught the IMPORTANCE of the need to do be more forceful, leading, etc. at times. I do not feel that makes me a Dominate though because I actually despise on many levels the need to even function in that capacity. That makes me a Top at those times, at best. Just as hubby is sub (more so then I am normally) and although he may learn how to use a paddle, etc. he is only topping me at best, it is never in his nature or ability to truly Dominate me.

As to switches, I'm afraid I don't understand them very well either. I don't mean any offense to anyone, to each their own as long as they are happy but switches seem at times to be more of a vanilla couple with a kink or two thrown in depending on the mood.

[subserviant]

an experiment was conducted, at I believe UCLA were students were put in a prison situation .some were prisoners and others were guards . these were ordinary peeps . the longer the experiment went on the more brutal the "guards " became . the experiment had to be stopped as the brutality got out of hand .The conclusion was that ordinary peeps bacame very dominate ,there for i would suggest thats its a learned trait

[Sub Stance]

In my case it was learned but I know that for my Mistress PRO DOM it was known right from the beginning. For her the lifestyle is inseperable from her persona. It is her being and her lifestyle. For me it was an offer I didn't refuse and am glad that I didn't since I've learned some pretty interesting things. Things I want done to me again! In my country there would not be very many people into it so I know that for that majority, it would be learned.

[icey]

i think you have to have a natural leaning towards it, both nature,genes whatever you want to call it and often the way you are raised (possibly becaue people tend to automatically react to a Dominant or submissive person automatically to some degree or another) both play a part in it in my eyes and the only thing in my opinion that has to be 'learned' whether you are Dom/me or sub is how to break free from the inhibitions and expectations society has given us which has been installed in us throughout our lives.

and some are more comfortable than others with that, if its too much of a struggle than id say its more of a want..a bit of fun than a need and a character trait and when thats the case its fun to play at it from time to time but thats as far as it will ever go without real inner conflict.

just my thoughts.