Slave profile?

[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...

[thir]

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[thir]

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.

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.

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.

[Ozme52]

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.