Question for the Subs-- how did you get this way?

[littlepos]

Hmm, interesting answers. I will try to make sense in my reply.

I dont think i am a "submissive". But with certain people, and at certain times, i enjoy being subject to the will of another. I like, and am attracted to, sadistic women. Not just dominant, but sadistic. If i am playing at this with someone, and i get the feeling she is not truley enjoying it, i lose interest in her and the scene.

Dommes have asked me what i am "into", and the honest answer is, whatever amusses her. I dont go in for the 24/7, the M/s capital letter thing, or for titles much beyond Mistress or Maam. I also dont like anything that feels ritualistic, or that involves worship.

And while it is fun and a turn on to imagine being kept in torture or bondage over long periods of time, real life does poke its boring head in from time to time.

As for how i got this way, i think there are a few factors, some of them not really pleasant.
First, i remember as a boy of about 10, having a crush on this girl in my neigborhood. She enjoyed using my feelings for her to take advantage of me, and would talk me into doing embarrasing things, while she actually was into some other guy.

But she would show me just enough affection to keep me coming back for more.

Another thing i remember vividly is a time when i was maybe 11, and some of the girls that lived near me talked me into playing with them over the course of the summer, instead of spending all my time in the woods or riding bikes with my friends. These girls loved the idea of having a boy around, and i was in a little awe of them, and also sorta conditioned by the girl i had the crush on to follow directions.

Little things, like putting make-up on me, locking me in the shed when i was "bad" and, of all things, tying my hands up while they took turns biting me on different parts of the body (this was all fully clothed, we WERE only kids)

As i got older, and various things happened in my life, i came to look for women who would let me have this uncomplicated release from decision making and thinking. And, in my 20's, i noticed a phenomenon.

Women, or at least the ones i had known and knew, were much more likely to show their true selves when they felt they had complete control. And, dammit, a lot of women do have a cruel side.

So, not only does playing the slave for a time help me feel, oddly, free, it often lets me get to know the real person. This is part of why i am not turned on by pro dommes, unless i can see past the persona.

that went long, sorry, and i am not sure that anyone will read it all the way thru, haha

Brian

[birdman284]

I don't consider myself to be a submissive, but I do enjoy power exchanges.

As far back as I can remember I've always enjoyed the feeling of "being controlled" sexually. My fantasies have always revolved around being under the control of a woman. That control has always been centered sexually, though... and not as a generic all-encompassing control.

I think this sums up my feelings pretty accurately. I'm in my mid 40s and only got into this lifestyle with my wife/mistress about 5 years ago - mostly through just experimenting with different situations and discovering that we both enjoyed the Mistress/slave relationship. We had tried and enjoyed things like bondage, her as my slave, etc, but this was what we both enjoyed. But it doesn't go beyond our sex life - in our day to day life, we treat each other very much as equals. So I think it's definitely about the power exchange as opposed to any real desire for me to be submissive or for my wife to be dominant. And to add to that, we take breaks from this from time to time where we are sexually equals (although as we do this more and more, that will likely occur less and less frequently).

Hope that makes sense - I'm not sure if it does, but it works for us!

Birdman

[SophiaStafford]

If a woman that I find even remotely attractive asks me to do something, I'm almost guaranteed to do it... and even go out of my way to do it... to satisfy them. Now, in these cases, we aren't talking sexually, although I suppose the root of it is sexual. Thinking that making them happy would make them interested and eventually lead to sex.

This is why online submissive are so different from the kind of people I'm used to working with. Typically, people hope, if only minutely, that obedience will lead to interaction which could lead to sexualized interaction. It is an incredible joy, therefore, in seeing how far you can push someone into altering their behavior and even their very identity.

Whereas, the people who I've met online genuinely crave sadism. I've known people like that, but in the past, it was only after I "made" them that way. In general, it seems like this is a fairly rare path to submissiveness. Most of the responses I'm hearing, both here and elsewhere, seem to be either "born that way" or else "gradually evolved such desires".

To expand the question-- any 'transformative' experiences where they were intentionally changes or rewired by a dominant?

Sophia

[slave alexander]

This is why online submissive are so different from the kind of people I'm used to working with. Typically, people hope, if only minutely, that obedience will lead to interaction which could lead to sexualized interaction. It is an incredible joy, therefore, in seeing how far you can push someone into altering their behavior and even their very identity.

Whereas, the people who I've met online genuinely crave sadism. I've known people like that, but in the past, it was only after I "made" them that way. In general, it seems like this is a fairly rare path to submissiveness. Most of the responses I'm hearing, both here and elsewhere, seem to be either "born that way" or else "gradually evolved such desires".

To expand the question-- any 'transformative' experiences where they were intentionally changes or rewired by a dominant?

Sophia

Would it be acceptable to PM you an answer Sophia?

[SophiaStafford]

Would it be acceptable to PM you an answer Sophia?

Now that's hardly conducive to fostering conversation, now is it?
-S

[slave alexander]

Sorry hahah i will try harder in the future but have to get to sleep
absolutely no disrespect to you though
Ii promise to try and be more forthcoming once fully recouperated

slave alexander

[SophiaStafford]

On another subject, when you quoted me it felt like you were placing my response into one of your two groups... and I'm curious which one you meant because it doesn't seem clear to me. From what I'm reading, it sounds like I would fit into the category of people you work with in person and not the type you meet online.

Well, I wasn't so much categorizing you as a person, as much as I was saying that the words you used did exemplify a certain point of view-- the one I frequently encounter in person, where I'm interacting with a stranger chosen at (essentially) random, or someone I've met through social or scholastic circles.

Having actually "made the leap" of transubstantiation, to the extent that submissive _IS_ sexy is a rare phenomenon. Far, FAR FAR more common is the sentiment "I'll do what she says because maybe then she'll like me and maybe then I'll get to touch her, or at least, be near her". And then, that sentiment is easily leveraged into "I'll do something humiliating because she told me to do it".

Online, however, things are somewhat turned on their head. Some people online would actually prefer obedience to actual sexuality-- for them, obedience has become sexier than sex itself. And since the only people I've known well who have that point of view were people who I "made" have that point of view, it surprises me that everyone else here seems to have developed that point of view organically, rather than having been "created".

I sort of knew this, but it's something I'd like to understand better.
Sophia

[Makarov]

"Some people online would actually prefer obedience to actual sexuality-- for them, obedience has become sexier than sex itself."

I can see how that makes sense. Online sexuality primarily revolves around receiving and following orders, and obedience towards said orders creates rewards. I'd be in the other crowd, the crowd that doesn't think obedience is sexier than sex. I'd imagine if I was in favor of obedience over sex, then that would be just one more nail in the coffin, an act of giving up the idea that I'd ever lose my virginity. Gotta have hope!

[dark]

Sophia,

On the first look your statement made sense and it made me thought. But...

I don't think categorizing submissives in groups is reasonable. From my experiences it's also not true a submissive is serving real time just because he hopes to get sex. There are enough Mistresses out there who clearly state there will be no physical contact and even no nudity.

Also if you look at all these Cash Princesses (some were even interviewed on your site) they for sure work with the sexy, girly, "I am so sexy come and get me but you can't" image. Which has from my view absolutely nothing to do with domination, but has more to do with the sexual intercourse thing you mentioned as a real time factor. It's more begging for money while they hold their breasts in the cam than domination. As you can see categorizing makes no sense, because there is variety on both sides.

On the other hand there are also online dommes who are totally different.

So I can't understand your point of view, because I don't see the sense of categorizing. I see different groups of dominants and submissives real time and online. I see different stories. I know about some transformations online as I know about subs who love to come to a SM party just because they want a bloody back and no sex

Maybe the whole discussion is a problem about subjectivity. At least I have to disagree about your statements, because my experiences are different.


PS. Welcome to the site

[slave alexander]

I agree with Dark,
It is difficult to categorize people in whatever element of life, however it is interesting seeing how others feel about their roles whatever that maybe. I definitely find the pay princess` a turn off to be honest (hope this doesn`t cause any offence.

slave alexander

[dark]

Very nice post, dark. I agree with pretty much most of what you've said. However, I do think it's fair to categorize on a larger level. Yes, every individual will be unique, but from a higher vantage point people pretty much fall into one category or the other. Either you've always felt like a submissive or you gradually became that way. (Of course, that only applies if you are in fact submissive.)

I've read a handful of the interviews on ToxicTreat, and I doubt I read any more of them. They all do seem to be either money Dommes or extreme feminists. Men are not pigs and any woman that considers us so is someone that I have no desires for. Every interview I read refer to men as such.

jp not all interviews there are like that. I found some with serious Mistresses who understand the deeper sense of power exchange. In fact we shouldn't blame subs or dommes who found a different access to power exchange. I recently learned a lot about financial domination and talked to people who granted me a different view on it.

In fact you can find serious people and people who don't get it in all categories.

[SophiaStafford]

I don't think categorizing submissives in groups is reasonable. From my experiences it's also not true a submissive is serving real time just because he hopes to get sex. There are enough Mistresses out there who clearly state there will be no physical contact and even no nudity.

Well, that's actually a great example-- clearly the people who seek out professional dominatrixes are in a different league entirely than the kind of guys who are willing to obey a social acquaintance in the hopes that it will lead to something more.

While an inexperienced sub might somehow have false preconceptions about professional domination, return customers will be well aware that professional domination is very much not prostitution. This cuts to the very heart of the matter: given the choice between prostitution and professional domination, submissives, or at least the ones in question, will always choose the professional dominatrix over the prostitute. Submission is sexier than sex itself.

So I can't understand your point of view, because I don't see the sense of categorizing.

Well, not to be too self-centered about it, but the point of trying to understand the "online, pre-wired-to-be-kinky" submissive is so that I can better understand what joys can be gotten from interacting with them.

In real life, my greatest joys involve what might be called "pseudo-consensuality". Which is to say, interactions that are certainly not _"nonconsensual"_, but interactions that leave me with the feeling that my 'victims' never exactly had the "sense of agency" or the "force of will" or even the "free will" to choose. After a while, it's hard to conceive of the possibility that they would ever choose anything other than what I decided I wanted them to choose. And yet, they still have a choice-- many many many choices-- and yet, they always choose what i want them to choose-- at first choosing only minor bruises to the ego, later choosing severe emotional pain and even trauma. This 'script' I understand-- it starts with simple attraction and culminations in submission. And while they technically consent, in practice, it's very hard to imagine that the playmates ever really had a choice about the matter.

That's probably an unusual way to say it. A more 'in the scene' domme might describe it as "pushing barriers" or "play around the edge of the comfort zone" or something that sounds a little less threatening.

The crux of the issue is this: What is the fun in hurting someone who, honestly and truly, wants to be hurt?

This isn't an actual problem in actuality, because it's a simple enough matter to simply hurt someone in ways they do not genuinely enjoy being hurt. The boy who longs to be spanked will cry real tears when given an honest appraise of some of the truths of his life and his identity. The consummate professional will reveal his parents contact information and his own work contact info, and beg you to seriously alter his entire life with two emails. So it's still easily possible to hurt those who like being hurt-- you just have to change the key in which the pain is played.

But I digress.

I suppose the thing I find fascinating is that a certain portion of the population does seem to develop a submissive orientation 'naturally' as it were. Which I find interesting. Why should it be so? Is it innate, or was were there developmental issues that simply cannot be identified in retrospect that caused someone to grow in this direction.

All human relationships are built on certain basic principles of what the other people's consciousness is life. For at least some people, the submissive I've met online, their internal wiring is, I think, fundamentally different.

I suppose I could make analogies to myself. I don't really understand why I am the way I am-- other than to say, powerfulness is, at least theoretically, nearly universally desired, so perhaps it's not my temperament that is different as much as it is my aptitude for actually getting the things that I (and most people) want. This is very different that submissives, who want what is, to others, noxious.

More in a moment
Sophia

[SophiaStafford]

I've read a handful of the interviews on ToxicTreat, and I doubt I read any more of them. They all do seem to be either money Dommes or extreme feminists. Men are not pigs and any woman that considers us so is someone that I have no desires for. Every interview I read refer to men as such.

The money dommes are an issue, in the sense that I do want my little art project to focus on "real" women who genuinely enjoy hurting and controlling others. But, I've neither the time, interest, or capability to discern who actually enjoys it on a psychological level and who merely enjoys the money. I suppose it's up to our readers to each try to discern that for themselves.

They all do seem to be either money Dommes or extreme feminists. Men are not pigs and any woman that considers us so is someone that I have no desires for.

In fairness to mere Feminists, I think I and many of the women that have been interviewed go far beyond feminist and cross the line in to "female supremacist". I know that term certainly applies to me. There are weak and strong in each sex, but I do genuinely believe women tend to be far superior.

Sophia

[coconuts]

Sophia,

This debate is fascinating...

So do you get more pleasure from the guy that starts off wanting to be dominated and wants to please. Or do you get more pleasure from the guy who thinks he can get his way in the relationship, but ends up so that his way is actually your way?

Coconuts

[SophiaStafford]

Have you ever thought that in some occassions, you might have been the 'victim' and not them?

To make you understand it, there is for example a) psychology, b) reverse psychology, c) 2 x reverse psychology, d) nth reverse psychology

That's extremely improbable. I certainly see how there is an element of "Who Really Controls Whom?" when you meet in BDSM-circles. Maybe the dominatrix is just being manipulated in to manipulating the submissive.

But, in general, I have always chosen to interact with people I just meet in my normal life. I'm still not convinced the term "dominatrix" even really is an accurate label for what I do. The odds that ever single person I pick just happens to actually be submissive and want that? impossible.

The best example was one time my sophomore year of high school-- by this point I had JUST started to let a few of my closest friends "in" on this side of myself. At one point I did a "scavenger hunt" of sorts, where I wrote down a bunch of things I was confident I could get _any_ guy to do, and then she pulled names "out of a hat", so that my scavenger hunt was filled with things like "Make Nick | buy you a rose" and "Make Zach | tell you a really embarrassing secret" and "Make Aziz | do your english homework". I know those are all really tame, but they were things I had to be sure I could get EVERY SINGLE guy involved to do-- and did I wind-up getting nearly all-- more than enough to seriously freak out my friend.

Online, well-- it's difficult to know what sort of emotions and control you have over people who you just meet online. Suffice to say, the normal rules certainly do not apply.

For this reason, nearly all of the online servitude to me is very quick and to the point. I'll say what I want, they do it, and who is to say whether it was hard for them or whether it was their life's dream. It doesn't really matter, in the end, as long as they delivered whatever it was I wanted. (well, it _does_ matter in the sense that, I enjoy getting inside someone's head and really knowing-- but there's sooo many seekers and so little time, that for the majority, I can't imagine ever taking the time to really bother to understand their psyche).

Sophia