submisives they become or they are born with it?

[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

[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.