I recently read an article based on research done that compared BDSM players to standard groups based on the criteria of personality types. The researcher used the following personality factors - neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness. (I'm sorry I can't get back to the relevant article but if I find it I'll link it here.)
As his research progressed he felt he may have stumbled upon a sixth personality factor relevant to the research - honesty/humility. People who identify as 'submissive' score particularly high on their 'desire to obey and be subjugated', seek self-basement and humiliation, and the researcher wondered if humiliation and humility might be related. In the same way people who identified as 'dominant' might be the opposite - possess a desire to feel superior to others, he speculated.
To return to the research findings, and bearing in mind that the researcher felt that these findings were by no means hard and fast, with there being some possible questions still in relation to the control group, some interesting theories emerged.
If one considers one of the factors of personality the researcher considered, agreeableness, dominants and submissives tend to be on the opposite sides of the scale. The definition of agreeableness used was pleasantness and consideration for the comforts of other people. Submissive people tended to be about the same as the control people on this criteria, but dominants were low. They tend to be "tough rather than tender minded' with a willingness to make hard decisions. They are "bossy" people and demanding in the way they relate to others. (What a shock!)
The researcher speculated, and this is interesting because I have read many people make a statement that is opposite to this, that the majority of people drawn to roles reflect rather than compensate for their normal personalities. People into BDSM, he felt, generally prefer the role that fits their own level of agreeableness. (I agree with this.)
In general life people tend to find disagreeableness as annoying and rude. Dominants, he determined, were "relatively shameless, self-confident, not easily embarrassed" and not guilty or shy about inflicting punishments. But, in the roles of BDSM "doms have found a way to express their disagreeableness in a way that is actually welcomed and appreciated by submissive partners".
This makes sense to me. I know I am often spoken to in a way that most women wouldn't care for. But, I process it differently. The bossiness is appealing to me, especially if 'bimbo' is present. It gives me tingles down my spine. It makes me feel alive. It's an "oh thank god, he's feeling particularly dominant today" feeling that comes as such a relief, usually. I'm much less excited when I am being hauled over the coals I should mention, or when the dominant is choosing to 'railroad' me with a deep, angry, aggressive tone of voice.
If one considers another factor of personality - extraversion - what he had to say about submissives particularly interested me. It appears we might be more extraverted than the control group; that is more sociable and assertive. (More assertive? Really? How interesting) It also appears that we may have a particularly friendly outgoing nature. We are excitement seeking. He doesn't mean that we necessarily like riding roller coasters (I pathologically hate to do that) but rather that the attention and the unpredictability in role-playing satisfies our need for excitement. I think this is absolutely right. I love the tango of BDSM. I light up when I am around a man being a little dominant with me in a playful way in almost any situation.
What alarmed me was what the researcher had to say about neuroticism; that is anxious attachment, a need for approval and sensitivity to rejection, all submissive traits. Dominants scored significantly low -the statistically largest different between groups - on neuroticism, rejection sensitivity and the need for approval. The alarm is based on the fact that rejection sensitivity and a need for approval are negatively correlated with subjective well-being; in other words happiness. Dominants scored high in happiness, he determined, concluding that most of the psychological benefits associated with BDSM belong to Dominants. (High extraversion + low neuroticism = greater overall happiness)
Of course these are all generalizations and don't relate to any two particular people and their relationship. However, the findings are worthy of consideration, especially as I compare them to literature given to me by my psychologist a few years ago. Those readers who have been around a while may remember that my psychologist identified in me a need to please people such that she felt that I was subjugating myself into unhappiness. I was allowing people to control me, she said. The article she gave me to read and make notes on so that we could discuss it stated, "Subjugation robs you of a clear sense of what you want and need - of who you are".
In the article there were two main reasons given why people subjugate themselves and the one that relates to me (since I don't subjugate myself out of guilt, though maybe to relieve the pain of others at times) is that people subjugate because they anticipate rejection, retaliation, or abandonment. This reminds me of a conversation I had with a dominant this morning and he made the point that a submissive can never, in a sense, relax. I responded that she can relax so long as she is perfect (haha) and this may, in fact, be relevant to the point here. The dynamic is set up specifically and intentionally to challenge the submissive and hence a bit of fear/concern/neuroticism about how she is doing and whether she has pleased is part and parcel of the game. We need to be aware of this, that the game is rigged against us, and not take it too personally, maybe.
To return to the subjugation article I was given to read, "It is part of the subjugation trap for you to believe it is somehow wrong for you to express your needs." That's true. I've definitely made that mistake (although allowing my submissiveness out with a strict dominant is one of my most vital needs).
The good news is that in the past few days there has been revelatory thought about that. I've lived for years, via the BDSM roles, with the feeling that I was on the cusp of being abandoned. Maybe, that was accurate. I really have no way of knowing this. But, I realized something lately that has freed me in my mind and made me much less neurotic and therefore more able to maintain a sense of happiness. Here it is. I am not likely to be abandoned at all. For one thing, I have been married for 35 years later this year. That's pretty stable! And, my mentor and I have endured one another (nah, I really mean forged a lasting and valuable friendship of sorts) that has spanned well over 5 years in length. It's time to stop feeling that I might be abandoned at any minute, don't you agree? And, if I am, well, I'll deal with that then and not today.
I honestly do and always will hate not pleasing. I loathe to be in the bad books and to be punished, especially through dismissal for a time. I think it makes me feel like the little girl that I never was, since I never was really punished. Punishment also makes me dwell on my weaknesses which is never easy either. I know I can be a 'hot head' and 'full of myself' and punishment makes me admit it, even if just to myself.
I think the meditation has helped, reading lots of spiritual words. I worry less about what will come later and live much more in the moment. I don't try to push for what I want so much, more confident in the fact that good things will come my way in good time.
I trust, not just in those dominant powers that influence my life, but in life in general. Sure, there is a bad and violent force in the world but I stand with the Headmaster of my son's previous school when he says 'There is more good than there is bad.'
I think there are tremendous psychological benefits to being in the submissive role but one must develop a strong inner self, an understanding that we must express what we need and want, and that, when all is said and done, we do what we do, dominant and submissive, because we crave intimacy. Even when my masochistic needs are incredibly high and I crave the nastiness of the dominant to dig his fangs deep into my skin, that's all about intimacy too. We can be vulnerable and strong at the same moment.
I think the research this man has done points out some important tendencies in BDSM players which must be considered and evaluated. It's vital that submissive people recognize that they can be vulnerable people and then work on those tendencies towards neuroticism. It's also important, I would say, that dominant people work on their tendency to be "relatively shameless". That can't be good.
As his research progressed he felt he may have stumbled upon a sixth personality factor relevant to the research - honesty/humility. People who identify as 'submissive' score particularly high on their 'desire to obey and be subjugated', seek self-basement and humiliation, and the researcher wondered if humiliation and humility might be related. In the same way people who identified as 'dominant' might be the opposite - possess a desire to feel superior to others, he speculated.
To return to the research findings, and bearing in mind that the researcher felt that these findings were by no means hard and fast, with there being some possible questions still in relation to the control group, some interesting theories emerged.
If one considers one of the factors of personality the researcher considered, agreeableness, dominants and submissives tend to be on the opposite sides of the scale. The definition of agreeableness used was pleasantness and consideration for the comforts of other people. Submissive people tended to be about the same as the control people on this criteria, but dominants were low. They tend to be "tough rather than tender minded' with a willingness to make hard decisions. They are "bossy" people and demanding in the way they relate to others. (What a shock!)
The researcher speculated, and this is interesting because I have read many people make a statement that is opposite to this, that the majority of people drawn to roles reflect rather than compensate for their normal personalities. People into BDSM, he felt, generally prefer the role that fits their own level of agreeableness. (I agree with this.)
In general life people tend to find disagreeableness as annoying and rude. Dominants, he determined, were "relatively shameless, self-confident, not easily embarrassed" and not guilty or shy about inflicting punishments. But, in the roles of BDSM "doms have found a way to express their disagreeableness in a way that is actually welcomed and appreciated by submissive partners".
This makes sense to me. I know I am often spoken to in a way that most women wouldn't care for. But, I process it differently. The bossiness is appealing to me, especially if 'bimbo' is present. It gives me tingles down my spine. It makes me feel alive. It's an "oh thank god, he's feeling particularly dominant today" feeling that comes as such a relief, usually. I'm much less excited when I am being hauled over the coals I should mention, or when the dominant is choosing to 'railroad' me with a deep, angry, aggressive tone of voice.
If one considers another factor of personality - extraversion - what he had to say about submissives particularly interested me. It appears we might be more extraverted than the control group; that is more sociable and assertive. (More assertive? Really? How interesting) It also appears that we may have a particularly friendly outgoing nature. We are excitement seeking. He doesn't mean that we necessarily like riding roller coasters (I pathologically hate to do that) but rather that the attention and the unpredictability in role-playing satisfies our need for excitement. I think this is absolutely right. I love the tango of BDSM. I light up when I am around a man being a little dominant with me in a playful way in almost any situation.
What alarmed me was what the researcher had to say about neuroticism; that is anxious attachment, a need for approval and sensitivity to rejection, all submissive traits. Dominants scored significantly low -the statistically largest different between groups - on neuroticism, rejection sensitivity and the need for approval. The alarm is based on the fact that rejection sensitivity and a need for approval are negatively correlated with subjective well-being; in other words happiness. Dominants scored high in happiness, he determined, concluding that most of the psychological benefits associated with BDSM belong to Dominants. (High extraversion + low neuroticism = greater overall happiness)
Of course these are all generalizations and don't relate to any two particular people and their relationship. However, the findings are worthy of consideration, especially as I compare them to literature given to me by my psychologist a few years ago. Those readers who have been around a while may remember that my psychologist identified in me a need to please people such that she felt that I was subjugating myself into unhappiness. I was allowing people to control me, she said. The article she gave me to read and make notes on so that we could discuss it stated, "Subjugation robs you of a clear sense of what you want and need - of who you are".
In the article there were two main reasons given why people subjugate themselves and the one that relates to me (since I don't subjugate myself out of guilt, though maybe to relieve the pain of others at times) is that people subjugate because they anticipate rejection, retaliation, or abandonment. This reminds me of a conversation I had with a dominant this morning and he made the point that a submissive can never, in a sense, relax. I responded that she can relax so long as she is perfect (haha) and this may, in fact, be relevant to the point here. The dynamic is set up specifically and intentionally to challenge the submissive and hence a bit of fear/concern/neuroticism about how she is doing and whether she has pleased is part and parcel of the game. We need to be aware of this, that the game is rigged against us, and not take it too personally, maybe.
To return to the subjugation article I was given to read, "It is part of the subjugation trap for you to believe it is somehow wrong for you to express your needs." That's true. I've definitely made that mistake (although allowing my submissiveness out with a strict dominant is one of my most vital needs).
The good news is that in the past few days there has been revelatory thought about that. I've lived for years, via the BDSM roles, with the feeling that I was on the cusp of being abandoned. Maybe, that was accurate. I really have no way of knowing this. But, I realized something lately that has freed me in my mind and made me much less neurotic and therefore more able to maintain a sense of happiness. Here it is. I am not likely to be abandoned at all. For one thing, I have been married for 35 years later this year. That's pretty stable! And, my mentor and I have endured one another (nah, I really mean forged a lasting and valuable friendship of sorts) that has spanned well over 5 years in length. It's time to stop feeling that I might be abandoned at any minute, don't you agree? And, if I am, well, I'll deal with that then and not today.
I honestly do and always will hate not pleasing. I loathe to be in the bad books and to be punished, especially through dismissal for a time. I think it makes me feel like the little girl that I never was, since I never was really punished. Punishment also makes me dwell on my weaknesses which is never easy either. I know I can be a 'hot head' and 'full of myself' and punishment makes me admit it, even if just to myself.
I think the meditation has helped, reading lots of spiritual words. I worry less about what will come later and live much more in the moment. I don't try to push for what I want so much, more confident in the fact that good things will come my way in good time.
I trust, not just in those dominant powers that influence my life, but in life in general. Sure, there is a bad and violent force in the world but I stand with the Headmaster of my son's previous school when he says 'There is more good than there is bad.'
I think there are tremendous psychological benefits to being in the submissive role but one must develop a strong inner self, an understanding that we must express what we need and want, and that, when all is said and done, we do what we do, dominant and submissive, because we crave intimacy. Even when my masochistic needs are incredibly high and I crave the nastiness of the dominant to dig his fangs deep into my skin, that's all about intimacy too. We can be vulnerable and strong at the same moment.
I think the research this man has done points out some important tendencies in BDSM players which must be considered and evaluated. It's vital that submissive people recognize that they can be vulnerable people and then work on those tendencies towards neuroticism. It's also important, I would say, that dominant people work on their tendency to be "relatively shameless". That can't be good.
There is so much here to comment on, but I'll stick to this paragraph:
ReplyDelete--In general life people tend to find disagreeableness as annoying and rude. Dominants, he determined, were "relatively shameless, self-confident, not easily embarrassed" and not guilty or shy about inflicting punishments. But, in the roles of BDSM "doms have found a way to express their disagreeableness in a way that is actually welcomed and appreciated by submissive partners".--
This is my man. Lol. Totally. Quite often I'm thinking, Do you ever listen to yourself? when he says things that make him sound like a jackass, for lack of a better word. It takes a certain degree of "balls" to be able to say and do the things he does. I could never do it. I couldn't even "act" that way if I tried. I would start giggling.
So I agree that D/s is a way that a man like that can express that in a way that is "welcomed."
But as for me, I don't welcome those qualities in other people. Just him. I'm not "a submissive" by nature. He just brings this out in me for some reason. He has the right combination of qualities that it works. I'm by nature a "no" person and avoid pushy people, so enjoying the company of someone who bosses me around is actually a very odd experience for me.
As for "extroversion" no, I'm a total introvert.
Tiklish: I get the feeling you enjoy him; that you've embraced all of him. I think I am a submissive by nature because I've had experiences where men of all ages have said something that arouses that submissive quality in me. It's grand that only your man arouses the quality in you. I can feel the subissive quality in me even walking down a street perfectly alone. It is just 'there'. We are all so very diffferent, which is how it should be.
ReplyDeleteI'd call myself an introvert too, yet if the definition of an extrovert is a particularly friendly, outgoing nature, I sorta qualify. I get asked for assistance a lot in the street and I nearly always approach people with a smile and try to win them over with friendliness and pleasantness. As I grow older, the introvertedness remains (needing to spend time on my own is vital to me) but I enjoy people more, every little encounter really.
A very illuminating piece, thank you. You are a very scholarly submissive! Of course every study of this nature must seek to find meaning and commonality in very diverse personality traits and is therefore, quite necessarily, prone to generalization. It is perhaps unsurprising therefore that I think there are other nuances at play here too.
ReplyDeleteTo provide a dominant's perspective, I know that I can be superior and arrogant at times and that I don't even know I am doing it until someone close to me gently points it out (oops!), so in that way I admit I conform to the stereotype. However I am invariably grateful when gently pulled up on this point, because I don't want to rub people up the wrong way unnecessarily, as this is always counterproductive in the long run. One can be demanding without being sociopathic and I have found that getting others to do what I want usually works best by being collaborative, supportive and convincing them it is really what they want too. But yes - I can make hard decisions with ease and that sometimes inevitably means upsetting some people along the way, which does not worry me.
Whether this is good or bad, or even relevant, I rarely change my course of action to assuage the upset of others, unless that person is someone I already care deeply about. I am not here to make everyone happy, nor do I go out of my way to make friends. Maybe it is the lone wolf in me, but I don't feel particularly responsible for the emotions of others. I do, however, believe in the Golden Rule and in random acts of kindness and have gained great satisfaction in paying for the order of the person behind me in the drive-through, just to give them a pleasant surprise.
I also see in all the submissives I have met a playfulness and an eagerness to please that seems to go beyond a fear/concern/neuroticism of displeasing or abandonment. Many find it fun to comply, but perhaps again this is due in part to the approach I take in finding ways for them to want to comply. I also see in many submissives that they find great satisfaction in achieving goals and overcoming obstacles, perhaps because they originally lack the self belief that they are capable enough. Hence they draw upon the strength of their dominant to propel them further than they could do so alone and have something positive to celebrate in achieving what is asked of them.
In the end, no doubt, it all comes down to finding a partner that fits one's personality and needs, so in that sense the research may be very valuable in helping the reader better understand themselves and hence what they seek in a partner. I do hope you can eventually dig out the link!
rollymo: It troubles me that people in leadership roles don't take emotions into account because I think it opens the door for people to lead without having a conscience. If the man to whom I was Personal Assistant were alive he'd be close to 90, so I'm talking about a past generation now, but I felt that he was aware of emotions even when he had to make hard decisions. He didn't cut himself off from the fact that his decisions would effect other people adversely. This all derived from his mother. She told him that he must always be good to women and whilst he was no angel, he did try very hard. So, he put off a man one day. We'd taken over another smaller company and he wasn't really needed. His wife made an appointment and on the day he looked out his window and saw her arriving and his mother came to mind immediately. Of course, she left with a better package for them. His humanity kicked in. I don't really see the value of leaving emotions out of the equation, in business or in personal relationships. If we all choose to continue to top one another with ruthlessness, where will it end? I listened to an American academic speak last night who said that Democracy wasn't really working because so much power was in the hands of so few now in terms of interest groups that Congress can't really pass laws anymore. I don't like where the world is heading if ruthlessness and egocentricity continues to spiral out of control.
ReplyDeleteI also felt a chill when Deanna Martin was talking about her father Dean Martin on air yesterday. He was a good father, she said, but he had a breaking point and once that was reached, he didn't look back. So, he reached that breaking point with his first wife, and then his second wife and then with Jerry Lewis. That 'hard edge' concerns me; that cut off from emotional harm. I mean, he came home and made a sandwich when he cut Jerry out of his life and Jerry pined and ached for years and years.
I've talked openly about my fears of abandonment in the hope that being open might help other people. There have been times of complete lack of engagement with my submissive personality for various periods of times in my life and perhaps that made me vulnerable to feeling that way. I had things to learn about creating my own energy supply and the yin and yang of relationships too.
But, I'd be very disappointed if the writing in this blog over some years hadn't made it clear that I have found "great satisfaction in achieving goals and overcoming obstacles". I'm a very fortunate girl to have had wonderful men in my life with great heart and moral compass. I have great admiration for them.
Vesta, I agree with everything you say in your response. We are I think coming at the same thing from different angles. I am fortunate to lead a good team of men and women who delight in following me and being part of my team. One cannot lead effectively without bringing along the hearts and minds of others and above all consulting them. The distinction, I think, is in self belief. Once the course has been decided there must be the conviction to carry it through and recognize that there will be upset along the way. Change by its very nature is uncomfortable - one is leaving one's comfort zone to get to somewhere new. What I meant to say and clearly did not do so effectively is that I am not dissuaded by the upset of others if the goal is worth the sacrifice.
ReplyDeleterollymo: Oh yes, for sure, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Someone has to make the final decision. This is a leader's responsibility.
ReplyDelete