hopelesslyInvo
Posts: 522
Joined: 2/10/2008 From: the future Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CelticSubM I'm not sure that sexual orientation is a good thing to use as a comparison. It's fluid in much the same way: Some persons report same-sex attraction early in life. Others remain strictly heterosexual until late in life. There are bisexuals, and there is "opportunistic homosexuality", such as in prisons or on ships at sea. I would describe dominance and submission not as sexual orientations, but as styles. I think both are basic human options for relating to others, emotionally and romantically, as well as erotically. (It's certainly no accident that much of the most conventional romance fiction contains thinly veiled d/s themes.) I believe that everyone does have the innate capability for either mode of expression, but for most persons, one or the other will seem more natural. It's not unusual for dominants, especially dominant women, to begin to explore d/s on the request of a submissive partner, out of a desire to please that partner. Who is really dominating whom in such instances? sexual orientation is a perfect to compare to dominance and submission to, only slight issue is that dominance and submission are relative whereas orientation is absolute. (leaving out the concept of pansexuals not knowing what the hell they want until they see it being counted as an orientation) find me the most dominant woman you know and i'll pit her with a lion that's submissive amongst their pack, then we'll see who gets beaten into submission. that's the issue of relativity. dominance and submission don't need each other, if you're submissive you'll still be submissive when you're around another submissive, if you're dominant you'll still be dominant when you around another person who's dominant. you don't choose those things, and you don't choose which trait you have in what amount. that's nature. much like orientation as well, you don't choose what you'll want to be attracted to. you might be submissive but be attracted to the idea of having control, you might be attracted to giving up control when normally you can't seem to stop trying to run others lives. a lot of it is like orientation and out of your control to decide what you'll end up attracted to or wanting. but this next part... it's completely your choice. in bdsm we choose dominant roles and submissive roles, for short times, or extended times. people tend to go with the obvious role to reflect the obvious round hole / square peg common sense equation, but it's a choice none the less in what we do. if it wasn't a choice, it'd be rape; albeit "natural, unavoidable, and not very logical rape", but still rape. much like orientation, we can choose the role that goes against our desires, the domineering can choose to accept domination, the straight can choose to accept sex with the same gender; hence forced bi/forced straight/forced anything. forced bi sounds a lot like rape unless you look at it in the same way as before; you're making a choice. by choosing to accept the whims of someone else, and choosing to follow through with them even when they go against what you want... in the end, it's you that's forcing yourself in "forced bi", it's kind of like raping yourself or as close as you can get to such a concept. or in short. orientation is a great way to look at the nature of being submissive or dominant / wanting to have control or have someone else control having sex is a great way to look at the roles of a submissive or a dominant / choosing to keep control or give someone else control and claiming to know a way to willfully rape yourself is a great way to make people think you're nuts
< Message edited by hopelesslyInvo -- 11/19/2009 11:06:23 PM >
_____________________________
great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
|