RE: Personality trait vs. Sexual orientation

RE: Personality trait vs. Sexual orientation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Acer49 -> RE: Personality trait vs. Sexual orientation (3/12/2010 3:42:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Inspired by another thread that I don't want to take off topic - I made a comment about "submissive" being a sexual orientation, and someone else said that it was a personality trait, not a sexual orientation. Now I'm aware that there are people who might be into BDSM solely for nonsexual service reasons, but for the majority of people, dominant or submissive, it's sexual. The main reasons I'd say it's a sexual orientation are: 1. Participating in a romantic relationship that doesn't involve any sort of D/s or BDSM is unfulfilling. 2. Many people have expressed that they wish they weren't into D/s yet were unable to find the same fulfillment in a vanilla relationship even though they had an overwhelming desire to change their sexual preferences 3. Motivations for the majority of BDSM activites are either sexual or sexualized, even without direct sexual contact the person feels a sexual rush or feels turned on. What do you all think? And obviously sexual orientation is a personality trait, but do you feel that D/s or BDSM leanings should be classified in that subcategory or do you think they are better considered a general personality trait separate from sexuality? From where I sit, it seems that you have attempted to submit your opinion, which is fine as we all have one, as fact without benefit a anything of any substance to validate your conclusions.

HeathenMa1am -> RE: Personality trait vs. Sexual orientation (3/13/2010 12:17:42 PM)
dominant and submissive are personality traits, but not inborn and unalterable ones. People tend to become dominant as they get older, even totally vanilla people-- think young wife eventually becomes sharp-tongued mother-in-law. In fact the terms dominant and submissive apply better to wolf packs than people. A person who is just into s & m for sexuality is neither a dominant nor a submissive, but a top or bottom. A person can be personality-dominant and sexually-bottom; that's the classic stereotype of the corporate raider who goes to a dominatrix. It's not just Hollywood, such people do exist.

stiv2009 -> RE: Personality trait vs. Sexual orientation (3/13/2010 12:53:16 PM)
For me it is definitely an orientation - for a couple of reasons. My first relationship with a mistress really did give me a feeling of inner peace - a sort of, wow, this really is who I am, sort of thing. Coming out (to myself!) as a submissive made me feel comfortable in my own skin which I had never felt to that extent ever before. It wasn't just like a guitar player who suddenly finds he can also play bass - corny as it sounds - it was a sort of coming home experience. I was bisexual in my twenties and thirties - and did go through a stage of "coming out" to friends - but it always seemed to me like an act of pointless heroism and I felt very little sense of personal liberation. It was a good alibi for unsatisfactory and short-lived heterosexual relationships though. But I think sexuality itself has a certain fluidity. I remember reading a newspaper article in 1993 about S&M - I can remember seeing a picture of a man with a shaven head with a crown of thorns on it made from barbed wire. At that time, the receptors in my brain just were not interested in that kind of thing. On some level it must have touched me, since I wouldn't remember it otherwise, but it really did seem from another world, a niche interest as irrelevant to me as some other niche interest, like playing bridge, or knitting, or constructing model aeroplanes or something like that. It just didn't register. Whereas now, anything remotely powerexchangy - immediately gets bells ringing in my head - the height of a heel straightaway gets me hypothesizing stuff. Its probably a bit like religion though. Some people are doomed to having to "believe" - others just happily roll up at the church every sunday. Steve

stella41b -> RE: Personality trait vs. Sexual orientation (3/13/2010 1:25:02 PM)
I disagree with just about everyone here.. The way I see it the fact as whether you are dominant or submissive hasn't got anything to do with your sexual orientation, nor has it really got that much to do with your personality or overall character. To me it's got far more to do with communication, interaction and how you relate to other people on different levels of intimacy. It's got nothing to do with sexual orientation, which is about who you are attracted to. Nor do I feel can being submissive or dominant be described as a personality type, because if it was you would be only able to to express yourself through being dominant or being submissive. The argument that it's a personality type is blown out of the water by the existence of people who switch. It's got far more to do with interpersonal communication, interacting with other people and relating to them. Consider that you cannot be either dominant or submissive when you are on your own, you do actually need that other person there with you to interact with. Almost every single activity that we regard as the stock, standard activities of WIITWD - bondage, flogging, spanking, ass play, etc require the participation of more than one consenting adult, as does the setting up of an authority transfer dynamic. Can you engage in bondage on your own? I'd really love to watch you tie yourself to the bed. For almost everyone here I guess this is a preference or indeed something much stronger, a very real and constant need which has a direct effect on their emotional wellbeing. If you feel more comfortable being in control and making the decisions then it can be assumed that you are dominant, just as if you prefer to serve and yield control in certain situations then that would mean you are submissive. Some people are ambivalent, which is why they switch, others prefer to be dominant with some people but submissive to others, which is why they switch. These are needs which are shared only with certain people and which require a certain amount of intimacy. The determining factor isn't sex, but intimacy. Intimacy isn't to me lying naked next to someone else in bed, but the desire and ability to be more open and vulnerable with someone else and relate to them in a way which involves your innermost needs and feelings. There can be just as much intimacy between a dominant and their service type submissive as there can be between a dominant and submissive in a romantic relationship. It's about the way we communicate, interact and relate to others, nothing more.

sirguym -> RE: Personality trait vs. Sexual orientation (3/13/2010 2:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Inspired by another thread that I don't want to take off topic - I made a comment about "submissive" being a sexual orientation, and someone else said that it was a personality trait, not a sexual orientation. Now I'm aware that there are people who might be into BDSM solely for nonsexual service reasons, but for the majority of people, dominant or submissive, it's sexual. The main reasons I'd say it's a sexual orientation are: 1. Participating in a romantic relationship that doesn't involve any sort of D/s or BDSM is unfulfilling. 2. Many people have expressed that they wish they weren't into D/s yet were unable to find the same fulfillment in a vanilla relationship even though they had an overwhelming desire to change their sexual preferences 3. Motivations for the majority of BDSM activites are either sexual or sexualized, even without direct sexual contact the person feels a sexual rush or feels turned on. What do you all think? And obviously sexual orientation is a personality trait, but do you feel that D/s or BDSM leanings should be classified in that subcategory or do you think they are better considered a general personality trait separate from sexuality? IMHO Dominance and submission is unequivocally a personality trait; it manifested itself with me at age 6 or 7, far earlier than any sexual interest. My sexual orientation is straight(ish) in that as a man I'm attracted to women, which includes many trans women, not just natal women. But I can enjoy Domination of an unequivocally male submissive, when I'd have no interest at all in having sex with him.

Elisabella -> RE: Personality trait vs. Sexual orientation (3/13/2010 4:11:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero submissive (noun) - sexual orientation; consciously chosen submissive (adjective) - personality trait; inherent The two don't need to be active in a person at once. Judging from various reflections of talks on the boards (which I have discussed with friends) it would seem, strangely, that many D-types favor a (n.) submissive who is actually not (adj.) submissive. OMG thank you! I was seriously wondering why people were comparing a rude mother in law with a sexual dominant.

Andalusite -> RE: Personality trait vs. Sexual orientation (3/13/2010 8:18:34 PM)
For me, it isn't either, it's a relationship dynamic and describes the way I interact with a specific person. Yes, some people have a shy, timid, people-pleasing demeanor, which can be referred to as "submissive," but that is independent of consensual D/s relationships. It's just as irrelevant as the horsey meaning of submission - we don't claim someone isn't a "true submissive" because his back muscles are tense, or because her ears aren't floppy!

leadership527 -> RE: Personality trait vs. Sexual orientation (3/14/2010 12:37:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andalusite For me, it isn't either, it's a relationship dynamic and describes the way I interact with a specific person. Yes, some people have a shy, timid, people-pleasing demeanor, which can be referred to as "submissive," but that is independent of consensual D/s relationships Perhaps for you, in the way you conceive of a D/s relationship, these two things are independent. For me, it is a central question.

Andalusite -> RE: Personality trait vs. Sexual orientation (3/14/2010 9:12:28 AM)
I was a Domme for 5 years, a submissive for 3 years, and I've been quite content in a few egalitarian kinky relationships in between. When I was looking, I was open to D/s developing, but it wasn't a requirement. My personality was pretty much the same in all of those relationships, so I don't feel it has any correlation to D/s for me. I also know a lot of submissives who have assertive personalities, and are very comfortable in leadership positions outside of their intimate relationships. I know a few Dominants who are a little shy at first, but who take charge within their relationships. I see a lot of people here who claim that there is a link, but IMHO, it simply means that for THEM, their personality and D/s inclinations are aligned. Their experience is meaningless when it comes to other people, who aren't aligned that way. A lot of completely vanilla people with no D/s interest whatsoever have "submissive" or "dominant" personalities, but unless they are knowingly and willingly engaging in a D/s relationship, I wouldn't consider them to be dominant or submissive in the D/s sense. They don't know themselves whether they would be dominant or submissive in that context, since the subject hasn't come up yet. I had some run-ins with a few guys and women who felt that my personality and demeanor were submissive, so they insisted that I was submissive, before I'd reacted to anyone that way. It just made me dig in my heels more, be less open to the possibility of submitting to anyone, and write them off as jerks who thought that they knew who I am better than I do. Actually, I don't think that my personality is submissive per se - I can be happy leading, or very compliant. It depends on the situation and the other people involved.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125