RE: Inversely Proportional?

RE: Inversely Proportional? (Full Version)

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

Message

OsideGirl -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 9:18:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub Is there an inversely proportional attractiveness to submissive ratio, ie the more physically attractive a person is, the less submissive that person is or is it something unique to these two cases? No, but there is psycho to hotness ratio. The hotter a woman is, the more likely a guy is willing to put up with her "psycho-ness". Honestly, I know some gorgeous women who are very submissive.

heartfeltsub -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 9:18:56 AM)
Actually maybe a better way to ask the question that I am wondering is as follows: If the sex with your s-type is phenomenal, would that have any bearing on how obedient or respectful you would expect him or her to be. Or would you let some disobedience or un-submissive behavior slide because of the great sex?

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 9:21:49 AM)
I've wondered why some people put up with certain things, when they claim to have a M/s relationship - but it appears, from the outside, to be anything but. I think it happens when one person is more afraid of losing the person, than the dynamic, and the other person is manipulative enough to exploit that insecurity. You are seeing it with attractive people and equating it to the attractiveness. I've seen it among people of varying attractiveness, and equate it to commitment and unethical/selfish behaviors. Selfish and manipulative people come in all brands of physical attractive/unattractiveness. However, most won't argue with the fact that VERY attractive people tend to get away with things more often. People can be suckers for beauty.

crazyml -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 9:25:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub So the question that arose is this: Is there an inversely proportional attractiveness to submissive ratio, ie the more physically attractive a person is, the less submissive that person is or is it something unique to these two cases? Another question that arose was which was more important phenomenal sex and attractiveness or phenomenal submission. Do you see many people who have both, who are highly physically attractive and also highly submissive and obedient? heartfelt In my (by no means vast) experience, there's no correlation between physical attractiveness (however one personally defines that) and submissiveness. I don't think there's a causal link between them. I've met plenty of very submissive people that are highly attractive, plenty of very dominant people who are the same just as I've met a mix of people that I don't find attractive. It's a bit like the link some people make between "self esteem" and submission (which I think is a myth as well). But... I think that physical attractiveness does have a dramatic impact on how people are perceived though - a fair proportion of men are very intimidated by attractive women, which (if they're dominant) must make it harder for them to do their domly thing.

heartfeltsub -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 9:27:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance I've wondered why some people put up with certain things, when they claim to have a M/s relationship - but it appears, from the outside, to be anything but. I think it happens when one person is more afraid of losing the person, than the dynamic, and the other person is manipulative enough to exploit that insecurity. You are seeing it with attractive people and equating it to the attractiveness. I've seen it among people of varying attractiveness, and equate it to commitment and unethical/selfish behaviors. Selfish and manipulative people come in all brands of physical attractive/unattractiveness. However, most won't argue with the fact that VERY attractive people tend to get away with things more often. People can be suckers for beauty. This makes a great deal of sense, one doesn't have to be attractive to be manipulative and if something exists in a relationship that one party doesn't want to give up, they will put up with a great deal to keep the aspect that they want to keep. Thank you for your response, heartfelt

heartfeltsub -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 9:29:36 AM)
In discussing both with my Dominant friend and He with His friend, they both bemoaned the "fact" that getting phenomenal submission and phenomenal attractiveness/sexuality in the same person was impossible. I strongly disagreed with that statement, saying it is possible to get both in one individual, it is a matter of what one is willing to settle for.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 9:46:53 AM)
quote: But then you made a comment about how confident a person is and how that person is less likely to be submissive. I may be reading what you have posted incorrectly. Actually, that's not quite what I said. Let me try to explain it another way. It's not that they are less likely to be submissive based on their confidence level, but rather that they are pickier about who they will submit to, as in they will wait for the right dynamic. Once they are in the right dynamic, they can become just as submissive as anyone else, based on their personality and personal preferences. It's less about capacity and more about the right opportunity. An person with confidence problems can be desperate and when they meet someone who gives them the attention they crave, they will do anything to be with them. Confident people don't give it up to just anyone. But that doesn't meant that in the right situation, a confident person can't find someone worthy of their total submission. The same goes for Dominants, you know. I am a relatively confident person and I really would rather be single than with someone who doesn't suit me. I'm not a very good Domme to a man I'm not really into because I have no motivation to invest that much of myself in it. On the flipside, less confident Dominants need a submissive all the time, even if it's not the right one, in order to validate themselves. FWIW, all this exists in the vanilla world too. The more confident you are, the less desperate you are.

Epytropos -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 9:59:08 AM)
Beautiful people are used to being treated with deference, so that can lead to pride and a sense of superiority, which might make it hard to submit.That said, I wouldn't call it an inverse proportion by any means. I have met extremely submissive, gorgeous women just as I have met bitchy and assertive ugly women. There may be some correlation, but certainly nothing concrete.

heartfeltsub -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 10:07:25 AM)
That makes a great deal of sense and something that I can agree with entirely. Thank you for your further explanation and you are quite correct it is not a "lifestyle" issue, it is a people issue. heartfelt

LadyAngelika -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 10:13:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub That makes a great deal of sense and something that I can agree with entirely. Thank you for your further explanation and you are quite correct it is not a "lifestyle" issue, it is a people issue. heartfelt I'm glad that I, as well as others on this thread, could provide you with different perspectives. Isn't this what the forums are all about? :)

OsideGirl -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 10:14:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub they both bemoaned the "fact" that getting phenomenal submission and phenomenal attractiveness/sexuality in the same person was impossible. Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're right. Because they've set that expectation, that's what they'll get.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 10:20:16 AM)
We're talking about a sexual preference here, now how attractive you are has nothing to do with how you are wired, or else there wouldn't be any attractive or unattractive gay people, submissives or dominants. And most D types don't want doormats, they actually do prefer confident s-types who don't submit to everybody and everything but who are quite picky with their submission and want somebody who's worth submitting to, it means they're submitting to you and the dynamic you have and it is something they want to do for you, not just because they are needy and would submit to anything and anybody.

heartfeltsub -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 10:40:07 AM)
I don't have a problem with sexual preferences, I don't want to be with someone who doesn't find me attractive. What my problem is and it is not really a new one, is someone who calls themselves submissive who doesn't obey or uses some form of manipulation not to submit or obey and someone who calls themselves Dominant allowing someone to not submit just to get something else (sexual satisfaction). I realize that many people may do that, it just bothers me. I realize that it really isn't any of my business, people will do what people will do, but when someone I know "decides" that He can either have great sex but it comes with the price of abysmal submission or great submission but not a lot of sexual attraction. That He has to put up with one to get the other. To decide that they can't come in the same person seems a huge slap to submissives. That bothers me. Hopefully that made some sense. heartfelt

LadyConstanze -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 11:36:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub I don't have a problem with sexual preferences, I don't want to be with someone who doesn't find me attractive. What my problem is and it is not really a new one, is someone who calls themselves submissive who doesn't obey or uses some form of manipulation not to submit or obey and someone who calls themselves Dominant allowing someone to not submit just to get something else (sexual satisfaction). I realize that many people may do that, it just bothers me. I realize that it really isn't any of my business, people will do what people will do, but when someone I know "decides" that He can either have great sex but it comes with the price of abysmal submission or great submission but not a lot of sexual attraction. That He has to put up with one to get the other. To decide that they can't come in the same person seems a huge slap to submissives. That bothers me. Hopefully that made some sense. heartfelt Sexual preference has NOTHING to do with being attractive, simple as that, an ugly person can enjoy the same things sexually as a supermodel does. if somebody wouldn't find you attractive, why on earth would they be with you? Unless of course you're fabulously rich and they're looking for a sugar daddy/mommy (kind of "what does the stunning supermodel see in the old and wrinkly billionaire...")... Why should somebody who might identify as submissive submit to anybody who calls him or herself a dominant? I wouldn't have any interest in such a person, sounds desperate and like a doormat. The guy or guys who decided that they can't have both - I guess there could be several reasons for that - they could be piss poor D types or just using the dominant label because they think that labeling themselves dominant means they don't have to invest emotionally in a relationship and have sex on tab, or you get guys who can't pull for love or money declaring themselves dominant and expect that they can then magically command women to service them sexually, because they say they're dominant and every submissive has to be submissive to every self-appointed D-type... The same exists when you reverse the genders. The whole thing is a relationship, if the chemistry isn't right, the attraction isn't there, no amount of kink will miraculously turn it into a successful relationship. Sounds to me that the guys are more intend on arm candy and kinky sex, they don't really want a D/s relationship, so they just declare it's not possible because they're not prepared to put in the work.

DecadentDesire -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 12:50:58 PM)
I imagine that women and men (women, more so than men in this scenario), who are highly attractive by standards of mainstream society and have had no problems receiving attention from the opposite sex in daily life, have less of a need to enter into a sub-culture and use their "submission" and "willingness to do anything for the one they love" as a way to attract mates and make up for their own issues of low self-worth and self-esteem. But, personally, this isn't the type of "submission" that I look for. I look for someone who finds pleasure when being controlled sexually and fulfillment when surrending authority to their intimate partner. That kind of "submission", based on my own personal experiences, has no correlation with being physically attractive.

DesFIP -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 4:22:31 PM)
I think this is all totally off base. The woman in question is one who is accustomed to being valued solely for her sexuality. That's quite different than being an attractive receptionist who first greets visitors to a bank. Because strippers are used to being treated like commodities by men who do not see them as people, solely as objects, they develop hard shells to protect themselves. When this dominant showed her that he values her for the same reason all the leering drunks asking for lap dances did, naturally enough she views him in a similar light to the way she views all of them. Strippers have difficulties maintaining solid relationships as a result of their experiences and the results it has on their psyche. That's more to the point.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 4:30:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Strippers have difficulties maintaining solid relationships as a result of their experiences and the results it has on their psyche. That's more to the point. What do you base this on? I'm not familiar with strippers and they don't discuss their relationships with me, but I recall that during university quite a few attractive girls supported themselves as strippers and the only problem they seemed to have were jealous boyfriends. Dunno about the US but in Europe there is a distinctive "no touch" law regarding strippers and anybody pawing one will be escorted out, because that then would cross over or could be constructed as selling sexual services, which would change the laws, like where the club can be located, what they can sell in terms of drink and how much they can charge for drinks, if there is no touching, they basically can charge any amount for drinks and the places earn from the drinks consumed there...

Tristan -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 4:32:41 PM)
This post reminds me of a song... If you wanna be happy For the rest of your life, Never make a pretty woman your wife, So from my personal point of view, Get an ugly girl to marry you. A pretty woman makes her husband look small And very often causes his downfall. As soon as he marries her Then she starts to do The things that will break his heart. But if you make an ugly woman your wife, You'll be happy for the rest of your life, An ugly woman cooks her meals on time, She'll always give you peace of mind. Don't let your friends say You have no taste, Go ahead and marry anyway, Though her face is ugly, Her eyes don't match, Take it from me she's a better catch. Say man. Hey baby. Saw your wife the other day. Yeah? Yeah, she's ugly. Yeah, she's ugly but she sure can cook. Yeah?. Okay.

Muttling -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 4:41:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub A recent conversation with a Dominant friend of mine has sparked this post and series of questions. He was commenting not only about His relationship with His s-type but also speaking about a conversation that He had had with another Dominant friend of His. He is finding that while the sex is phenomenal with this particular s-type, that she really isn't that submissive. She is BDSM model and former stripper, so fairly attractive and the girl that the other Dominant was talking about falls in the same category of being fairly attractive and highly sexual. So the question that arose is this: Is there an inversely proportional attractiveness to submissive ratio, ie the more physically attractive a person is, the less submissive that person is or is it something unique to these two cases? Another question that arose was which was more important phenomenal sex and attractiveness or phenomenal submission. Do you see many people who have both, who are highly physically attractive and also highly submissive and obedient? Thank you in advance for your responses, heartfelt I can't speak for others, only for me. I used to say that looks were totally unimportant and I came to learn that I wasn't so perfect. Looks do matter to me. This said, connection is FAR more important. You can be a total bombshell of a woman (and I have a dated a couple who were), but it's just not happening if we don't connect on a multitude of levels. My Miss is beautiful, but she's not the most beautiful woman I've ever dated. This said, I'll take her over ANY woman I've ever been close to. We understand each other and we connect on the kinky side, the sexual side, the vanilla side, etc. I don't want a one dimensional relationship no matter how good that one dimension is. I want it all to be good or it's not going to meet my needs.

SuperHappy -> RE: Inversely Proportional? (8/6/2011 4:53:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub In discussing both with my Dominant friend and He with His friend, they both bemoaned the "fact" that getting phenomenal submission and phenomenal attractiveness/sexuality in the same person was impossible. I strongly disagreed with that statement, saying it is possible to get both in one individual, it is a matter of what one is willing to settle for. Umm.. perhaps over-simplifying it, but perhaps they lack attractive traits? Embittered people are embittered people, Dom or otherwise.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02