Sexually submissive

[thinkreal93]

Hey guys.
I discovered recently that I like to be dominated in bed. Not hardcore dominated. Just sex with some domination. It's not even a necessity for an orgasm. I can do without it just fine. But it's there.

I'm trying to figure our the reason though. It's not the feeling of being desired, nor is it the feeling of being used that's a turn on. It's more of my partner being more manly that's a turn on. But why my partner being more manly is a turn-on for me, I don't know. Might it be something to do with my feminine nature enjoying the masculine charge of my partner ? I am naturally feminine , but I can also see myself taking charge (somewhat) sometimes too.

Do let me know your thoughts on this, and also if you like being submissive or dominant, what do you think is the reason in your case ?

Sent from my ONE E1003 using Tapatalk

[TwisttheLeaf]

I'm not sure why is as big a subject as simply knowing what you like, yeah? There can be LOTS of whys, and most of them are not negatives.

In my case, its the trust. Its the letting go, and having a partner that I can trust to be vulnerable for.

Now, chances are that [MENTION=20938]Gideon[/MENTION] and I's brand of Dominance and submission is probably a lot more intense (and violent) than what you're personally interested in, but regardless of the intensity of it.... it's still opening yourself up to being vulnerable with someone you trust to take that vulnerability and not crush you under it.

[Pix]

For what it's worth, I thought I'd share an observation. As a lesbian, I noticed that a great many lesbians were fairly independent and not particularly submissive (nor dominant), and sharing this observation with another, he said that he was part of a BDSM club where most of the straight men were dominant and nearly every straight women submissive, but those who were not strictly straight varied widely so it was roughly 50/50 (gay men, lesbian, bi women, etc). I thought about this awhile, and also noted that many asexual women were also independent and self-sufficient who could typically stand up for themselves as they must. The most obvious reason was that as we didn't have a man to do these things for us (and didn't have a reason to pretend otherwise) that we developed this side of ourselves more with a result of us being less submissive and more independent.

And yet it didn't perfectly fit. There were a minority of straight women who were more like us, and I also noticed lesbians who were more like straight women in being submissive and wanting a dominant partner and who were fairly girly in all the ways (not to say all lipstick lesbians are this way, mind you).

So looking closer, I realized that the submissive, "girly" women were raised on the media aimed at them, that which starts as Beauty and the Beast and retains that theme into adulthood (such as Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey). Though the media isn't the only influence on a child's developing brain, it does have an affect (how much varies depending on other factors, such as exposure and also other sources--yet most friends and family will also imitate the media ideals as well so that the media will likely dominate them indirectly if not directly). The lesbians more like straight women that I was able to learn more about were raised on the girl media. It gets us to imagine and think a certain way, and over time that shapes our character.

Meanwhile the straight and asexual women who were not standard were not raised on standard media. They focused on other aspects of the media or were more purely academic, and this was usually intense enough that it countered society's pressures on how they should be.

In my case, I started with the same movies and cartoons as other children, but whereas girls went on to focus on the Beauty and Beast romance avenue, I found myself more relating to Pippi and Dorrie the Little Witch, and that led me to fantasy and scifi where women were both more present and typically with a different role. Star Trek the Next Generation, Deep Space 9, and Babylon 5 give examples of that, romance was present but it didn't dominate, and women had more equal roles and were self assertive rather than submissive, and men could also take on nurturing or submissive roles just as women could take on aggressive and domineering ones. (I'm amazed at how progressive Isaac Asimov was even back in the 1950s!) And I immersed myself in that media growing up. I suppose it also helped that for better and worse I had some dominant women in my life.

All in all, I was raised with a different social construct of feminine roles and I gravitated to fit that, just as many kids gravitate to their idols and other influences. I'm sure if I had been straight then I'd have been more attracted to the romance genre and would thus be more feminine and submissive today, and yet if I still went with the same media then I'd be like the rare independent and self-reliant, self-assertive straight women I know.

Of course, it all does beg the question, did the media shape us this way, or were we drawn to the media we indulge in because of how we're wired when we're born. My money is on the former rather than the latter, especially as I see how culture affects standards on what is attractive mentally and physically for most within the said culture.

And if you've always thought of yourself as more feminine and identified with the women in most media, then I could see you adopting a submissive desire who wants a take charge man.

[MikeW]

...All in all, I was raised with a different social construct of feminine roles and I gravitated to fit that, just as many kids gravitate to their idols and other influences. I'm sure if I had been straight then I'd have been more attracted to the romance genre and would thus be more feminine and submissive today, and yet if I still went with the same media then I'd be like the rare independent and self-reliant, self-assertive straight women I know.

Of course, it all does beg the question, did the media shape us this way, or were we drawn to the media we indulge in because of how we're wired when we're born. My money is on the former rather than the latter, especially as I see how culture affects standards on what is attractive mentally and physically for most within the said culture....

Interesting observations, [MENTION=14705]Pix[/MENTION]. The way I see it, most of what we think of as "ourself" is personality and that IS shaped by the world around us in sort of concentric and overlapping circles of influence from parents/family on out to all the rest of society. But, there is also a 'something' that we are at birth. It may be small and mostly unformed, but we don't come into the world a totally blank slate. So, some of this 'something' has preferences for what it takes in from the outer world and how it takes it in. In your case, for example, speculating what you'd be like had you been straight... I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't be significantly different than you are. I'd bet you would still choose to immerse yourself in the same kinds of liberated or self-reliant life stories, and model your personality and life choices on them. No way to test that, of course, but I suspect its true.

Part of the reason I say this is because some of us (I'm one of them) grow WAY beyond what we're born into. I was a bare-foot Indiana farm boy. And yet, although that is quite literally true, on the other hand, I was *never* JUST such a typical baseball, mom and apple pie kind of boy. Ever. LOL!!! It took me many years to actually "escape" the world I grew up in... but on a lot of levels... mentally, intellectually, emotionally, in terms of the range of my imagination and interests, etc.... I was gone LONG before I actually left.

[LJay]

I think what you are describing may just be a part of what a lot of Indiana kids go through, [MENTION=20947]MikeW[/MENTION], even some of he ones that stay around there. It's an interesting patch for growing seedlings, as it were.

[MikeW]

I think what you are describing may just be a part of what a lot of Indiana kids go through, [MENTION=20947]MikeW[/MENTION], even some of he ones that stay around there. It's an interesting patch for growing seedlings, as it were.

There's nothing wrong with growing up in a rural environment, if you're suited for that kind of 'soil'. For sure, living there, growing up there, had a strong influence on me. I 'absorbed' certain 'nutrients' from that culture that have been of value to me.

But as much as that was the case, it was also quite toxic in other ways. It took me a very long time, for example, to figure out that what was "wrong" with me was a) not because I was a homosexual. I finally realized, I would have been the same as I am, would have gone through the same kind of inner turmoil, even if I'd been heterosexual. It took years of therapy to figure that out. Moreover b) to realize that there wasn't actually anything "wrong" with me in the first place.... It was just that my sensibilities didn't "fit in" with either the dysfunctional family dynamics I was born into or the larger (equally dysfunction, IMO) social environment that was based on using the "pretense of love" as a control mechanism. "We only want what's best for you..." I heard that repeatedly... and I knew... KNEW... deep down that they had NO IDEA what was *best* for me.

And yes, I'm still pissed off about it. Even after all these years. I've forgiven them. Every last one of them. But I'll never completely get over what they did to me totally out of ignorance.

[MikeW]

...I'm trying to figure our the reason though. It's not the feeling of being desired, nor is it the feeling of being used that's a turn on. It's more of my partner being more manly that's a turn on. But why my partner being more manly is a turn-on for me, I don't know. Might it be something to do with my feminine nature enjoying the masculine charge of my partner ? I am naturally feminine , but I can also see myself taking charge (somewhat) sometimes too. ...

First, my apologies if some of what I posted above is taking this thread off topic...

I don't know whether its important that we understand "why" we are the way we are. However, I do think it is important for us to *know* who we are, what is TRUE for us, and accept that. Also accept that this "truth" is flexible. As you're saying, you feel something intense and meaning full when, in a sexual situation, your partner takes a dominant role. Nothing at all wrong or even odd about it. That's what 'works' for you. But, on the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be a 'passive' person in regard to everything in life. Who knows, as you grow and become more mature, even your 'passive' role in sexuality may shift. Or you might discover (as I have) that it depends on you sexual partner. For me, some men bring out my dominant side, others just the opposite. With some we can flip back and forth. ... But that's what's true for me. Wha tis true for you is yours, your life. I'm not sure knowing "why" really makes much difference. I can understand the curiosity, lord knows I've spent YEARS trying to figure out why I am the way I am. But in the final analysis, what I realize is, it doesn't really matter. I am what I am.

I'll just add that I've met many "alpha male" type men who, in the bedroom, are screaming power bottoms. LOL!! You really cannot judge a book by its cover!

[thinkreal93]

MikeW, Thanks very much. I am indeed not in conflict with my submissive side. Just wanted to know what it meant.

Thanks again for the explanation.

Sent from my ONE E1003 using Tapatalk

[irishbritish]

I will add that being a top or bottom are only roles and sexual forms of pleasure. There are some guys who like to top more and others who like to bottom more. Those whom I talked to it's not that they wouldn't do the reserve role, just that they preferred it, just like one prefers tea to coffee (i.e. which that is true about me, I like my tea!)

I don't think it has anything to do with femininity, because there are many masculine type guys who enjoy bottoming, too. It's more about how it makes you feel, and if you are with the right partner, he / she understands your role and how you feel and wants to give you more. For me, it's emotions that fuel the sexual actions and how my partner feels and that it is good that I go forward. if he stopped, I would stop!

So, I would say you just like being pleased that way. BDSM is whole another bag, and other discussion, which might be a role you might enjoy if you were experimenting. That's the one where the partners agree on a master/slave role and it has nothing to do with actually slavery!

[Gideon]

I just realized I haven't piped in on this one yet...even though Twist most definitely pointed me this way on purpose

*Chuckles*

There doesn't need to be a -reason-, Think, it's just that you're figuring out you have needs that are submissive in nature. That doesn't mean you're feminine, it doesn't mean you're weak...it just means you have tendencies that are submissive. A craving for dominance...

BDSM isn't about kinky sex or slaves and masters or ropes and chains. Not to me, at least...Dominant is what I -am-...I just am. I didn't decide one day I wanted to be dominant, it's just part of who I am. Who and what I've always been. Giving it a title and finding a whole other group of people who actually got that? That's what happened when I discovered BDSM...but I've always been dominant.

So see, there doesn't need to be a -reason- for it, it's just kinda who you are