Slave profile?

I have a couple of books about to be published by bdsmbooks.com, but that's not what this is about. While we were proof reading one of them thir and I got to discussing an idea of mine, and I thought I'd like to hear other people's take on it. The passage in the book is

Quote:

---

Albus [the hero's mentor] has what he considers a profile for the natural slave – inadequate or alcoholic parents, need to control, being used and neglected in relationships, a vocational calling to the forces or teaching or nursing – and she ticked all the boxes.

---

Later it transpires that the sub has trouble masturbating to orgasm, and the hero reflects "Score another for the Albus slave profile!"

While it's only a story, I do think this list has some validity. I've observed some combination of these characteristics in all the subs I've known well enough to learn such details, and also in online contacts. (Talking of vocational callings, I was amused when one of my favourite BDSM characters in webcomics, the Gothgirl Alisin in "Fans!", grew up to be a cancer nurse. I did not tell them to do that!)

Thir's view is that I'm presenting all subs as "damaged goods." My view is that, first, this isn't about all subs, it's about those drawn to full slavery, which is a much smaller group; and second, it's not about being damaged - not in a negative way. There is a widely held belief that artists, writers and similar creative people all have some kind of personal trauma or emotional damage, and wouldn't be what they are without it. I don't consider that this makes all writers damaged goods. It's just saying that what we are comes from where we've been, and that goes for everyone.

As for the list... My first sub girlfriend: 2 and 4. Eisha, my ex-wife: 1, 2, 3 and 5. Note that 5 is explicitly about being unable to masturbate (usually through fear of losing control), not about anorgasmia: once I'd forced her through the fear barrier, she had no trouble coming thereafter. Wunja, my late wife: 1, 3 and 5. Taffi, my ex-slave: 1, 2, 3.

Regulars will know that I'll disagree hotly any time someone raises the old idea that all BDSMers have been abused (and that's why we're so sick and twisted.) That's both oversimplified and demonstrably false, but it's not to say there aren't some influences that at least some of us have in common. And though the characters in the story wouldn't say it, being much less broad-minded than their author, I'd guess that this may also apply to a lot of Dom(me)s.

Any views?

It's easier to make rules that fit the facts with hindsight than it is to predict? ;)

Meaning... get a woman to fill out a questionaire... are you still confident you can label her "slave material"?

I think there are deeper and more complex issues in what attracts people to the slave roles.

I wonder if the study mentioned had any non-slaves or vanilla people questioned as part of the study to be used as a control group?

I lived a pretty normal feeling childhood in so far as I know...no abuse or anything.

I am a firm believer however that altough people are all different that we also have many simularities and subsects of general groupings of different types that are for the most part applicable alltough not always mutually inclusive in all cases.

Sometimes these charactieristics used to define any paticular group are not desierable ones, or they are drawn with the purpose of drawing attention to a precived weakness or some other durogatory condition by which those of a given group are somehow aflicted etc.

However....one thing I do know from my experiences (despite any negative impressions that such stereotypes can generate conserning those of us who submit in total to another) is that it takes real strength and courage to submit in such a fashion and lots of love and intuitive thinking to do it well.

And those are just a handful of the many other good qualities that we who are collared as slaves also hold in common.

Sounded more like a personal observation than a study...

I have worked as a counselor and I am in AA and sponsor many women. I would have to say that much of the questions would apply to many women, many more than are slaves. Most of us have had bad relationships for example. I mean how many people in the world can say they haven't? Women not being able to orgasm is not unusual sadly, nor is having an alcoholic or dysfunctional parent. As far as the need to control? I am not sure if you mean co-dependancy or being in an authoritative role somewhere in life? I would have to say that once I stopped questioning why am I like this and looking for reasons the easier it has been for me. I hate to think of it as being messed up somehow or somewhere. I have experienced that people for the most part are broken somewhere and have extraordinary strength somewhere as well, just all in different places. I would just be careful as was said above to look for a check list for slaves as it starts to quickly remind me of a profile for an illness rather than what do we all have in common. Unless it included strengths in the "profile" it would feel negative to anyone who had to look at it.

well frankly it's all true for me(:

Hmm. Interesting. #s 2, 3, 4, & 5 here. i thought that all those generalisations about us kinky folk were rubbish too, but this has got me thinking...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

Sounded more like a personal observation than a study...

---

Since Le9 is away right now I am asked to answer: yes, it is not a study, but a personal observation.

And on my own behalf:one I disagree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

I think there are deeper and more complex issues in what attracts people to the slave roles.

---

Would you like to elaborate? Seems that is what is being asked.

Any ideas what makes the counterpart attracted to the owner role?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyldrose

Hmm. Interesting. #s 2, 3, 4, & 5 here. i thought that all those generalisations about us kinky folk were rubbish too, but this has got me thinking...

---

They are. The surveys about comparing bdsm people and vanillas are big and the results have been confirmed in other similar surveys: there are no differencies between the amount of problems in a bdsm group, and a vanilla group.

The only question is whether there are differencies within our group, that is, if what problems there are (which are the same ones as the ones the vanilla people have) tend to be clustered in any particular group within bdsm - in this case, slaves and slave owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

I think there are deeper and more complex issues in what attracts people to the slave roles.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Would you like to elaborate? Seems that is what is being asked.

---

I too am being anectdotal so it's difficult to quantify or qualify. But one such anectdote relates to people who are dominant in their career life. They wish to give up their control to someone else in a venue, sex, that is their escape from that day to day grind. So they submit. Give up enough control and they're slaves. There really is no difference except in degree. In some perspectives, slaves have more control than submissives because the master's expectation of a slave may well be the same expected of an executive assistant. Whereas the expectations of a submissive may just be to offer up whatever is desired of them from moment to moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Any ideas what makes the counterpart attracted to the owner role?

---

I have no idea. It's far easier to be analytical of others than oneselves. I was born to be a dominant personality. I've always exhibited it, I found hobby, social, and career venues in which it flourishes.

To be honest, I would much rather follow that lead in any given day to day situation...so long as a compentent leader of some kind was there to follow that is...lol.

I've had time to think over both the original idea, and the way I presented it, which I can see was misleading in places. This started with my awareness that I can often spot submissives when they're not "flagging" in any obvious way, or taking that kind of role in a social setting; something goes "ping" and later I find out I was right.

My sonar (as in sub detector) is purely intuitive, I don't know what I'm reacting to. But based on that and my experience of common traits in submissives, I imagined a Dom using a list like that to identify likely targets. I'm not sure it would work in real life - as badkitty says, these traits are found pretty widely: but maybe if you saw them all in one person it would mean something.

When I said this was only about slaves, I was mixing up the story and my real life experience, because out of my own subs only Taffi was a 24/7 slave. And I didn't mean to imply that this profile would fit everyone, not even all slaves. I believe there are a statistically significant number that it fits: I'm equally sure there are some who are quite different. (Given my views on D/s in general, I'd expect that it would also fit a lot of Dom(me)s, but that's pure theory, as I have no personal evidence to back it up.)

And most important, as I tried to explain before, I didn't mean this to be construed as "subs are sick puppies." Only one item on that list relates to past influences, the rest is about people's profiles now. And if those past influences are negative, then as my example of writers and artists was meant to convey, we're talking about people who have found a way to turn that into something positive and valuable. They're not victims or damaged goods.

I appreciate you saying that, didn't take it as that though if I sounded for my post as I did. I will say as far as being able to spot us....i told my Master today actually that He looked at me as if He owned me right away. I had never practiced anything like bdsm before and He hadn't even spoken to me. Yet He knew, don't know if its something one can say why they know, but I would have to say that somehow I believe it can happen as I have seen it happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

I too am being anectdotal so it's difficult to quantify or qualify. But one such anectdote relates to people who are dominant in their career life. They wish to give up their control to someone else in a venue, sex, that is their escape from that day to day grind.

---

Being of an endlessly curious nature, I wonder in my spare time why some people feel this need of 'time out' if we can call it that, and others are subs all the time, or dom all the time?

Also, while submitting is the freedom to give up choice, it is no picnic.

I also wonder why, if you want time off, you do not sit with a long drink with your feet up?

There has to be more to it than that. It is not that it really matters, as such, I am simply curious. These matters have been discussed endlessly in organisations I have belonged to, for the same reason, curiosity. And we have never found a reason, or any commen denominators such as the ones MyLord Leo9 gives.

Quote:

---

So they submit. Give up enough control and they're slaves. There really is no difference except in degree. In some perspectives, slaves have more control than submissives because the master's expectation of a slave may well be the same expected of an executive assistant. Whereas the expectations of a submissive may just be to offer up whatever is desired of them from moment to moment.

---

You are right, labels muddle as much as they help.

Quote:

---

I have no idea. It's far easier to be analytical of others than oneselves. I was born to be a dominant personality. I've always exhibited it, I found hobby, social, and career venues in which it flourishes.

---

So do you think (guess) that is might be something we are born with?

Hm.. I rather think that we might be born pan sexual or multi sexual and that (whatever) conditions and happenings determine which ones grow. I gather we'll never know. But it is interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13'sbadkitty

I will say as far as being able to spot us....i told my Master today actually that He looked at me as if He owned me right away. I had never practiced anything like bdsm before and He hadn't even spoken to me. Yet He knew, don't know if its something one can say why they know, but I would have to say that somehow I believe it can happen as I have seen it happen.

---

Well, isn't it natural if like minded people attract one another? I think it is much like non-bdsm falling in love - some people does tend to attract each other.

It sounds like the bdsm version of 'love at first sight' :-)))

Quote:

---

Albus [the hero's mentor] has what he considers a profile for the natural slave – inadequate or alcoholic parents, need to control, being used and neglected in relationships, a vocational calling to the forces or teaching or nursing – and she ticked all the boxes.
Later it transpires that the sub has trouble masturbating to orgasm, and the hero reflects "Score another for the Albus slave profile!"

---

I think it is worth mentioning that these points are all part of the same thing.
With alcoholic parents you tend to be either over controlling or out of control depending on how you managed the problem, your take your idea of what marriage is like from your parents, you often nurse yourself by nursing others, and, as said, difficulty with orgasms is fear of lack of control, in this context anyway.

So, as I see it, it is not a checklist as such, more a matter of whether some subs/slaves tend to choose that way of living as part of dealing with such a family back ground and the scars it will give you. Which is not to say that living like that is a picnic or a refuge, but that it is, for some people, a way to live with strength in another way than most people choose. Much the same as the source of some creative people's talent stems from troubles in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

As for the list... My first sub girlfriend: 2 and 4. Eisha, my ex-wife: 1, 2, 3 and 5. Note that 5 is explicitly about being unable to masturbate (usually through fear of losing control), not about anorgasmia: once I'd forced her through the fear barrier, she had no trouble coming thereafter. Wunja, my late wife: 1, 3 and 5. Taffi, my ex-slave: 1, 2, 3.

---

Me, 1 and 2. But I am not very submissive, more dominant than anything else. It is only MyLord Leo9 who can somehow reach into me and drag out submission, more or less against my will...

So, is your list of parners representative of subs/slaves, or does it simply say what kind of people you attract/are attracted to? You do tend to pick up strays ;-)

Quote:

---

Regulars will know that I'll disagree hotly any time someone raises the old idea that all BDSMers have been abused (and that's why we're so sick and twisted.) That's both oversimplified and demonstrably false, but it's not to say there aren't some influences that at least some of us have in common. And though the characters in the story wouldn't say it, being much less broad-minded than their author, I'd guess that this may also apply to a lot of Dom(me)s.
Any views?

---

Sounds to me like you say that most BDSM people have had a strong negative influence in their lives, which they turn into something positive.
Is that right?

I still do not agree. I don't think it is that simple. For a given value of 'simple'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

I think it is worth mentioning that these points are all part of the same thing.
With alcoholic parents you tend to be either over controlling or out of control depending on how you managed the problem, your take your idea of what marriage is like from your parents, you often nurse yourself by nursing others, and, as said, difficulty with orgasms is fear of lack of control, in this context anyway.

---

I hadn't noticed, but you're right. That puts a different slant on it, indeed.

Quote:

---

So, as I see it, it is not a checklist as such, more a matter of whether some subs/slaves tend to choose that way of living as part of dealing with such a family back ground and the scars it will give you. Which is not to say that living like that is a picnic or a refuge, but that it is, for some people, a way to live with strength in another way than most people choose. Much the same as the source of some creative people's talent stems from troubles in the past.

---

That's how I see it. The only one of mine who didn't have such a background was Taffi, and she'd had horrendous childhood injuries; I often wondered if she enjoyed pain because she'd had to learn to ride it or be broken by it.

Quote:

---

Me, 1 and 2. But I am not very submissive, more dominant than anything else. It is only MyLord Leo9 who can somehow reach into me and drag out submission, more or less against my will...

---

And you look all the more beautiful for being so surprised by it :)

Quote:

---

So, is your list of parners representative of subs/slaves, or does it simply say what kind of people you attract/are attracted to? You do tend to pick up strays ;-)

---

True, but I also pick up subs. So I stand by my view that I've identified, let's say, a significant group within the D/s population.

Quote:

---

Sounds to me like you say that most BDSM people have had a strong negative influence in their lives, which they turn into something positive.
Is that right?

I still do not agree. I don't think it is that simple. For a given value of 'simple'.

---

I don't have enough information to say "most": let's say, a statistically significant number. But as you point out, my sample is biased by my other tastes, so it may not be as important a tendency as I thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

So do you think (guess) that is might be something we are born with?

Hm.. I rather think that we might be born pan sexual or multi sexual and that (whatever) conditions and happenings determine which ones grow. I gather we'll never know. But it is interesting.

---

I definitely think we're born with it... but all three types and maybe more. We can be born dominant, submissive, or pansexual. We can be born attracted only to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes. We can be born introverts, extroverts, outgoing to shy. We can tend toward monogamy or we can tend toward polyamoury. There are probably those among us who tend toward neither, and have a wholy different perspective of love. And I think it all depends on what our particular genome found to be a success formula.

I also think a lot of our natural instincts are modified by societal mores. So I basically agree with you save that I don't think there's a single formula.

I know I was dreaming dominant dreams from pre-puberty. As I entered the age where I was ready to settle down, I pre-negotiated an open relationship because I already knew I'd fall in love over and over again... and didn't want that to mean I had to "end" my current love and relationship. I'm dominant. I'm polyamourous. Nothing societal made me that way, imo.

I think it would come down to the whole nature/nurture argument.

there was a study of dominance in baboons. what was discovered was that the troop leader had the highest levels of serotonin. lower it and he lost his position. raise a subordinate troop members serotonin and he took up fighting his way to the top as well.

is this conclusive with us? idk. I and my master are both subject to depression at times and he can take ssri without issue infact it is helpful, and for me they make me agitated and aggressive. could it be that he is just adjusted to feeling dominant and i am not? maybe, also we are both alcoholics and children of alcoholics and that makes sense to me as what we inherited alcoholism from our parents as its about a genetic disorder and a way of thinking and reacting to the world around us.

There is so much written into who we are and we have no idea where it all stems from. some social sciences would make it all from some form of disease or dysfunction. Is there an anthropologist in the forum?? curious to see if dominance/submission is just a part of being a primate but don't want to sound like I am quoting anything else (except maybe Bones )

"Structure equals function" applies universally in every thing from sub atomic arrangments to complex biochemistry.

We as human beings are on the far end of our primacy being the byproduct of evolution on this planet to date at the present time. I am sure if we survive the comming three way evolutionary apex of diminishing resources vs levels of population growth vs technological inovation we will continue to evolve as scheduled. Yes: How often and when we evolve has even been found to be pre-recorded into our DNA.

The way the brain works, its structural arrangements (the anatomy from the atomic level to the large scale) and the coresponding functions there of (the phisiology IE what and how the brain works and what one can and cannot do with it etc, how memories are stored why some people become serial killers and why others are predisposed to become saints, why humans behave they way they do in any given situation etc) are all things that we know a lot more about than we did in preceeding generations, especially in the past ten years as multidisiplinarian experiments have confirmed repeatably the predicted outcomes.

We may all wish romantically or out of some sence of overinflated human pride that we must some how be different and that its all a matter of our own choosing and that no one can be born to be who and what they are... but the deeper science delves into the matter...the more and more it is showing us that the mantra tuaght to everysingle person who ever takes an anatomy and phisiology course bears true over wishful thinking.

One is preprogramed to respond to a large variety of stimuli, some have more of a predisposition for some things as opposed to others, increasing the chances that they will do better in those areas if and when they apply themselves to them.

Just like some people have pedispositions to substance abuse, gambeling, or any number of other traints, diseases, sexual prefrences, different types of criminal behaviors, etc etc the list goes on and on and on.

A lot of us will want to compromise and say its a 50/50 thing between nature and nurture...but the more we know about it, the more the nurture precentages seem to decrease.

Furthermore... nurture is often about releasing the potential provided by nature. We can learn to do just about anything, but the things we take to easiest are those that we are predisposed to do by nature.

N.B. That last point isn't about things like specific tool usage (e.g. driving a car) but still applies to the extent of our natural skills. It's hard to judge us, as compared to other creatures, because we're the only ones who are (apparently) introspective enough to consider nuture as a driving force. None of the other animals would worry about it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

Furthermore... nurture is often about releasing the potential provided by nature. We can learn to do just about anything, but the things we take to easiest are those that we are predisposed to do by nature.

---

My favourite example of the complicated link between genes and growth is tortoiseshell cats. (The kind with random blotches of colour.) When they've cloned this breed, they get kittens that all look different. Apparently the tortoiseshell genes say "make blotches," but where, and what colour, is determined by something else - maybe an internal randomiser, maybe microscopic chance influences in the womb.

I'm guessing a lot of other things work the same - genes set the parameters, chance or early influence set the exact values. Variety is good for a species, particularly a species like ours that specialises in everything. Contrary to the alpha-male theory of evolution, there is not one "fittest" type to which the whole species is trying to evolve: what type is fittest changes all the time.

yea basically what I am reading about the place an animal who is a "highly aggressive social species" like ourselves is that if we all exhibited the same amount of dominance than we could not survive individually or as a species, we would not be able to cooperatively hunt or protect our territory or common interests. So then it comes down to the i don't know what for determining dominant or submissive and to what degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

My favourite example of the complicated link between genes and growth is tortoiseshell cats. (The kind with random blotches of colour.) When they've cloned this breed, they get kittens that all look different. Apparently the tortoiseshell genes say "make blotches," but where, and what colour, is determined by something else - maybe an internal randomiser, maybe microscopic chance influences in the womb.

---

I saw a very interesting program about what controls genes - gene's genes if you will - and it was fascinating. I believe we have only started to understand genes. The genes of genes among other things apparently shut them off an on, but also influence other things.

Quote:

---

Variety is good for a species, particularly a species like ours that specialises in everything. Contrary to the alpha-male theory of evolution, there is not one "fittest" type to which the whole species is trying to evolve: what type is fittest changes all the time.

---

Yes, otherwise how would there be any evolution? I believe it means on-going changes and adaptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

I am sure if we survive the comming three way evolutionary apex of diminishing resources vs levels of population growth vs technological inovation we will continue to evolve as scheduled.

---

I do not believe we have evolved into this situation you describe, if by 'evolve' we mean going forward. I believe we are going the way of the dinosaurs.

I do not think there is a schedule, either, if by that you mean that things will keep getting better, that the species must continue to function better than the previous generations over time.

Evolution, as I understand it, is much more chaotic that that. It is not a straight line from less funtional to more, there are lots of hit-and-miss expereriments on the way.

And considering how busy we are cutting off the branch we are all sitting on, I am inclined to consider us a 'miss. Humans, with all their knowlegde and brains and power, are incredibly stupid.

Quote:

---

The way the brain works, its structural arrangements (the anatomy from the atomic level to the large scale) and the coresponding functions there of (the phisiology IE what and how the brain works and what one can and cannot do with it etc, how memories are stored why some people become serial killers and why others are predisposed to become saints, why humans behave they way they do in any given situation etc) are all things that we know a lot more about than we did in preceeding generations, especially in the past ten years as multidisiplinarian experiments have confirmed repeatably the predicted outcomes

---

I remember reading so many times researchers say that there is so much more we do not know, than we know. Brains are still a mystery. Just think of recent experiments with such a simple thing as when the brain is or isn't dead. There have been some intersting surprises there in recent years :-)

It is said by people who study the history of science that from time to time science reaches a sort of plateau where they say: "now we know just about everything about everything." And then we have amazing new discoveries, and humility and curiosity comes back with a vengence.

Quote:

---

We may all wish romantically or out of some sence of overinflated human pride that we must some how be different

---

From animals, you mean?

Quote:

---

Just like some people have pedispositions to substance abuse, gambeling, or any number of other traints, diseases, sexual prefrences, different types of criminal behaviors, etc etc the list goes on and on and on.

---

Yes, genes have been the buzz word for quite a while, and attemps are to try to make them explain just about anything. But as many biologists say, genes can not explain behaviour in such detail.

And a lot of new stuff have come up about genes, that they themselves have genes (my term, as I cannot remember the biological expression for this), and the whole thing is vastly more complex than we have been lead to assume.

Quote:

---

A lot of us will want to compromise and say its a 50/50 thing between nature and nurture...but the more we know about it, the more the nurture precentages seem to decrease.

---

That depends who you ask. There are a number of scientists discussing whether culture is overtaking biology - weird as it sounds. At least to me.

I dont make a seprate distinction between the two (culture and biology) since the one drives the other by creating it via evolution.

I dont believe we as a species are doing anything other than just what mother nature intended for us to do when it programed us to be and act just the way we are. We dont need to go the way of the dinosaurs if we can overcome the limitations of our condition and evolve into a species capable of self directed evolution. (Which means being capable of planning and organizing our cultural direction as well and not looking away from the coming problems but instead cooporating to over come them. Living in a kind of symbiosos with our enviroment and going all natural is something we havent done since before we left the trees and altough it has some merits if one wishes to move backwards and give up everything that put us here, it will still statistically end with us eaither destroyed by another more expansive species or portion of our own...as evolution has proved or in stagnation and demise from within as we use up all our rescources in a paticular area and eaither die out or move on.

We shouldnt restrict ourselves to only living on the planet we were born upon. Evolution I am sure doesnt end at the endge of our atmosphere.

If you look at the development of the human mind you will find it to be quite liniear...all extinct versions of it have been in some way surpassed by newer better smarter more creative models. Sure evolution works every angle it can, but lets face it...it only keeps the proven susccessful ones...when bigger and badder wasnt the answer as with the dinosuars, smarter seems to be the only logical remaining choice. Hence we are here and able to discuss this at all.

I dont care what the "buzz" words are or are not.

There are just as many scientists who see culture as simpley another extension of biology. The real change there of wont come until a human evolves who can modify the one to benifit the other and see's it work.

I never said we knew everything, or that we dont find more things need to be explored further.

Only that the more we have learned the more things prove to be less about wishful thinking and more about actual biology and science.

The way I view this profile business is that there is indeed an "official" profile similar to what the OP said that goes around craigslist type sites. Both those looking for slaves and those looking for masters.

I think the point is not to say that its negative or they are damaged etc. But that this certain "type" is soooo submisive ie. slavey in such a demonstrable way that these circumstances have happened to them because they are lacking some sort of assertiveness etc. that those who are less submissive might have. It's also a way I think to wave your "Knight on a white horse" flag. Some woman want to be rescued. Some Doms enjoy rescuing and building up a person from those circumstances.

I wont say a large amount of people fit this. But there is definitely a circle of people this fits.

Perhaps some of the confusion is in this part You wrote "It's just saying that what we are comes from where we've been, and that goes for everyone."?

As for me and my Belief system I Believe Life is a continuum. That is; Each of Us, while here *Now*, were somewhere else before here, and we will move on to somewhere else after here. It is so very True that while one may travel anywhere and may leave anyone else behind, the One one can never leave behind is oneSelf. I Believe what You say is correct "what we are comes from where we've been". BUT the issue in this discovery may be in "where we've been"? Since that is not *Just Here*? And so by experiences considering Who and What we are culmatively (not just experiences Here) and how conciously one may have access to that information within themSelves, likely determines a more exact answer. We All have our own Spirit, though connected to the Collective, Still One's Own. And then also Believing Most (if not All) of Us do the best we can to take the Knowledge and Lessons from Our Individual Journeys forward with us as we each accumilate and Grow what is each of Us ongoing. I Believe we are Born Here with what we came with, and that Grows further through this Life experience here. Each of Us Is Dominant, Submissive, Slave, Power Shifter, or a combination of these. We are Born Here with What We Are, but What we Are Grows. I am sure damage, and/or bad or hard experiences or Lessons form Us by Our perceptions of those experienses, responses, and what next action We Choose, just as more Positive Lessons/Experiences do. Kind of like *You Are What You Eat*. Your Nature is Your Own. AND, I Believe Your Own Choosing.

I Am Slave, that is My Nature. I was Born Here as Slave. Always Loving, Nurturing, Serving, Those whom I come in contact with. (Not a Knowledge about mySelf easily attained obviously as I spent much of My Life Here with people inquiring of me, me inquiring of mySelf, and Living with the constant accusations of "You Give too much?" "Why do you keep Giving to (insert name) when (insert name) does/did (insert thing)?" "WHAT is wrong with YOU/Me?". The so very Simple Answer ringing in my Heart and Ears, however complex it was Understanding it> *Because it is What is Needed!*. It is not/was not under threat or damage sustained that I Am Who I Am, but for My Own Love and desire to Serve, to Give, to Heal, to Please. That Is My Nature.

Does this help at all?

Respectfully

Yes. Thank you for your answer, and good to 'see' you :-)