# Dominant or Submissive?



## Zagnut (Dec 5, 2006)

One last thread before I again drift off into lurker-ville ...

This isn't necessarily a BDSM related inquiry, but what do you personally see as more the norm in BHM/FFA relationships in regards to dominant and submissive partners? I was thinking about this earlier while reading other threads, and it seems for one group of FFAs they see their BHM partners as the more submissive, while others see them as the dominant. I think it would be interested to see a bit more into the dynamic of the relationships that posters her have? I am also curious how BHM/FFA relationships would be in comparison to other relationships?

Thoughts? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## Blondeegrldd (Dec 5, 2006)

The biggest man I've dated was submissive due to his shyness and inexperience when it comes to sex. I enjoyed this. I think many women would agree that it's a turn on to WOW a man, his involvment consisting of just sitting back and letting his expression/pleasure say it all. What woman wouldn't want to be a goddess in a man's eyes?

There were also times he dragged me into the bedroom with the soul purpose of treating me like a piece of meat.. moments like this when that dominant animal inside him poked his head out were mega hot. 

I've only had 1 relationship with a true BHM (over 300 lbs) so far. It was what I wanted it to be on the surface. The attraction highly mutual. The emotional connection real (we're both cancers, that's why ). Our goals and values almost identical. But we didn't work out because he doesn't love himself. He hated the way he looked. He hated his past and the issues he was forced to deal with. My support and affection did very little to improve his self-image. Because he couldn't love himself, he couldn't possibly love me.


----------



## moonvine (Dec 5, 2006)

Why does it have to be either? Why can't a relationship be at least more or less balanced? I realize there's probably no such thing as a perfectly equally balanced relationship, but one could be more "submissive" in one area and more "dominant" in another. Or it could vary from day to day.

By the way, I hope you don't remain in lurkerville too long as I really enjoy your posts.


----------



## persimmon (Dec 5, 2006)

The Boy and I have a facade for the public that involves him being my forgetful dirty blonde, and me wearing the pants, backpack and telephone. I think it may have to do with me being average size, highly educated, and from a long line of women with fierce tempers.

At home, though, we're pretty much even partners. I certainly like the big bulky hugs, but it's not an issue of feeling protected, as it seems to be for many women.

(Also in bed, we're so vanilla that we have the little black speckles.)

persimmon


----------



## lemmink (Dec 5, 2006)

I've always been the dominant partner, but that was never dependent on my partner's side - I'm just a control freak.


----------



## missaf (Dec 6, 2006)

Most of the BHMs I've been with have been submissive, and I think that goes back to what Blondee has said. They were all very shy, not confident in their size, and if I didn't start something, nothing would get started. There's eben one exception, but he was very self confident, and radiated his sexuality, like a magnet :wubu:


----------



## Zagnut (Dec 6, 2006)

I honestly suspected that most BHMs would tend to take a more submissive role. I'm going to make an educated guess that BHMs who are inclined to be more dominant would likely attract more women who aren't specifically FFA.

What do you think?

Oh, on the lurking thing, it probably won't be for long. I just think my threads are dominating (no pun intended) this forum a bit too much, and I'd like for more threads by others. I'm kind of posted out, heh!


----------



## moonvine (Dec 6, 2006)

missaf said:


> Most of the BHMs I've been with have been submissive, and I think that goes back to what Blondee has said. They were all very shy, not confident in their size, and if I didn't start something, nothing would get started.



I could never, ever be attracted to someone like that. I think it would be difficult for me to even be friends with someone like that. 

I like big guys (though not exclusively) but they have to own it. Otherwise I won't be attracted. And there are lots of big guys who do own it and I am attracted to (of course, they all have girlfriends already).


----------



## moonvine (Dec 6, 2006)

Zagnut said:


> I honestly suspected that most BHMs would tend to take a more submissive role. I'm going to make an educated guess that BHMs who are inclined to be more dominant would likely attract more women who aren't specifically FFA.
> 
> What do you think?



Possibly. I'm not specifically FFA, and I'm attracted to big guys who are dominant. But one person does not a statistically valid sample make.


----------



## missaf (Dec 6, 2006)

Moonvine, I totally understand where you're coming from. I'm more attracted to self-confidence, so that's probably why it's hard to find what I'm looking for


----------



## Zagnut (Dec 6, 2006)

moonvine said:


> Possibly. I'm not specifically FFA, and I'm attracted to big guys who are dominant. But one person does not a statistically valid sample make.



It took me a long time to become dominant as a bigger man, as it really seems that so many try to almost coerce big guys into submissiveness. Terms like baby huey, cuddly, teddy bear and such that are often applied seem to serve to feminize big men even more.

I remember great apprehension over the fact that bigger men were often viewed as asexual, so any interest towards a woman by me would be interpreted as a wrong and gross, as I didn't engender the typical sexual attraction response in most women that an athletic and toned man would. I missed a ton of opportunities with interested women merely because I was afraid or missed signs, and didn't initiate that first kiss. Conversely, I lost a ton of female friends because I made the horrible mistake of allowing interest towards them to develop and somehow become known. How I ever got over it, became like I am now and got the girl I'll never truly know!

Then again, just yesterday I had a highly embarrassing incident in public that clearly reminded me how most people view bigger men. No good deed goes unpunished!


----------



## Eclectic_Girl (Dec 7, 2006)

Zagnut said:


> It took me a long time to become dominant as a bigger man, as it really seems that so many try to almost coerce big guys into submissiveness. Terms like baby huey, cuddly, teddy bear and such that are often applied seem to serve to feminize big men even more.



See, to me, a big man (tall, broad, wide) is totally masculine and those musclebound, 0% body fat gym rats comparing biceps and how many reps and how much weight per rep act a little too much like cheerleaders at the prom. A writer I respect talks about the concept of Man Strength (functional) vs. Gym Strength (aesthetic). Gym Strength: can deadlift xxx pounds; Man Strength: can take the heavy end when you're moving furniture. Gym Strength: does curls with free weights; Man Strength: carries a 3-year-old who refuses to walk any more halfway through your visit to the zoo. And, in my experience, the guys who have a significant layer of fat over those muscles are the ones with the Man Strength. 

Physically, I like bigger men because I'm big, and I don't want that feeling of my lover disappearing in my fat when I hug him. I don't want to be dominant, but I don't want to be dominated, either. And I don't think that shy and submissive are necessarily the same thing. They often go together, but shyness can also mean that he prefers to establish deep relationships slowly with a few people rather than being everybody's instant best friend. Someone shy in that way I find infinitely attractive, whereas a submissive doormat who can't tease me back or call me on my (occasional) bullshit? Not so much.


----------



## lucyp (Dec 7, 2006)

I think both my husband and I are dominant. Neither one of us is at all submissive. Well, we might play pretend for two minutes with either of us going in either direction, but as a lifestyle we'd be doing that equality thing.


----------



## keith (Dec 7, 2006)

A healthy relationship, imho, must be an equal partnership. Yes, there is an ebb and flow of control from time to time and through different situations, but on the whole I believe that in anything other than a brief game or exploration of fantasy, an essential element of the totality of the person is sacrificed on both sides of the dom/sub equation.






Zagnut said:


> One last thread before I again drift off into lurker-ville ...
> 
> This isn't necessarily a BDSM related inquiry, but what do you personally see as more the norm in BHM/FFA relationships in regards to dominant and submissive partners? I was thinking about this earlier while reading other threads, and it seems for one group of FFAs they see their BHM partners as the more submissive, while others see them as the dominant. I think it would be interested to see a bit more into the dynamic of the relationships that posters her have? I am also curious how BHM/FFA relationships would be in comparison to other relationships?
> 
> Thoughts? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## Laina (Dec 7, 2006)

keith said:


> A healthy relationship, imho, must be an equal partnership. Yes, there is an ebb and flow of control from time to time and through different situations, but on the whole I believe that in anything other than a brief game or exploration of fantasy, an essential element of the totality of the person is sacrificed on both sides of the dom/sub equation.




Not necessarily. There are personality types that crave one level of control or another--lifestyle D/s relationships, when they're good relationships, are designed to cater to both partners' needs. It IS possible to have a healthy D/s relationship. It just isn't suited to everyone.


----------



## Zagnut (Dec 7, 2006)

Laina said:


> Not necessarily. There are personality types that crave one level of control or another--lifestyle D/s relationships, when they're good relationships, are designed to cater to both partners' needs. It IS possible to have a healthy D/s relationship. It just isn't suited to everyone.



Well said. It's always surprised me just how much control the submissive partner actually has over the dominant.

D/s relationships are highly misunderstood and are definitely not for everyone. So many people seem to think they are endemic of dysfunctional people, much the same way many think all who are heavy are emotionally damaged.

Am I an emotionally damaged person with has to resort to deviant sexual aberrations in order to tolerate my own self loathing ... or am I just a happy, kinky and hedonistic fat man that enjoys teasing and worshiping my lovers?

Hmm?


----------



## Happenstance (Dec 7, 2006)

I would say that both my current girlfriend and I are submissive types, so I have taken it upon myself to be the one to move things along, as it were. I'm not that big, though, so I am inclined to believe that the submissive tendencies of mine are rooted elsewhere.


----------



## Melian (Dec 7, 2006)

I always end up dominating in every relationship, no matter the weight of the man/woman.

I wish some of them would turn the tables on me, but I guess there are a lot of subs out there!!


----------



## Blondeegrldd (Dec 8, 2006)

When all is said and done, I say enjoy the one you're with and your sexual rythm will develop a flow and style of it's own - which includes coming out of your shell to play a role you never thought you'd play


----------



## estrata (Dec 8, 2006)

Okay, here is my take on the whole D/S thing. I encourage anyone to contradict me, but please recognize I’m not dissing the D/S lifestyle, I am just cautious of it especially in the case of FFA/BHM relationships.

My hubby has always had very low self confidence, and when we met I took all the first steps. I’m not a dominant personality per say, but I had more confidence than him. You could say I was the dominant one in the relationship, I suppose. I’m not talking bedroom here, just general day to day existence. But having low confidence for him, and I suspect for many BHMs, was not so much a choice and something that had been “done to him” by years of criticism and self-doubt. So, had I been a naturally dominant person and we had had a D/S relationship, I believe it would have not been good for him.

Now I don’t want people to get angry at me here, and I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with D/S relationships in the bedroom. But I believe us FFAs have a duty toward our BHMs &#8211; many of whom have very low self confidence &#8211; to encourage them to be dominant more often in the relationship. This is sort of an emotional growth thing. When we met, my husband not only thought he was unattractive, he believed he was BELOW average intelligence and basically not capable of much. This just pissed me off, honestly. ^_^ He is so smart, so handsome, and he could do so much if he only believed in himself. Now I’m the opinionated, take-charge type, but I have to consciously put myself in the back seat and let him take control. And honestly he didn’t like to at first &#8211; he was always convinced he would screw up &#8211; but sometimes it is important to just say “you decide”, and not argue with his decision. I just have to let him drive, so he knows he can. And when I see how proud he is when he does something he didn’t think he could, I know how important it is.

So in conclusion to my little essay, I believe that in a deep and meaningful relationship, whether BHM/FFA or otherwise, there has to be some give and take. I’m not saying it can’t be a D/S relationship, but each partner still has to depend on the other to some degree, or else why be in the relationship in the first place? And us FFAs really have to be cautious about being the dominant one, because our BHMs have been put down so much they’ll naturally go into a submissive role &#8211; they just don’t have the confidence to be dominant. So we have to ask ourselves &#8211; is our BHM really confident enough to be submissive? Does he really want to be, or does his low self-confidence just make him believe he can’t take charge? Because in a relationship it is the job of each partner to give the other strength, and not to encourage self-harming behavior.


----------



## Laina (Dec 8, 2006)

estrata said:


> Okay, here is my take on the whole D/S thing. I encourage anyone to contradict me, but please recognize Im not dissing the D/S lifestyle, I am just cautious of it especially in the case of FFA/BHM relationships.
> 
> My hubby has always had very low self confidence, and when we met I took all the first steps. Im not a dominant personality per say, but I had more confidence than him. You could say I was the dominant one in the relationship, I suppose. Im not talking bedroom here, just general day to day existence. But having low confidence for him, and I suspect for many BHMs, was not so much a choice and something that had been done to him by years of criticism and self-doubt. So, had I been a naturally dominant person and we had had a D/S relationship, I believe it would have not been good for him.
> 
> ...



I think there's a lot of misunderstanding regarding D/s relationships, and you've touched on a lot of it. And really, that's all right--you have every right to be distrustful or disinterested in D/s. It's an intense lifestyle, and it requires a lot of trust and self-discipline on both partners' parts...and a lot of self-awareness. Both submissives and Dominants need to know what they want and need from a relationship and be CLEAR with each other on those issues. (Bear in mind that I'm speaking from an outsider's perspective. I'm not really much of a sub or Domme. I have, however, seen lifestyle D/s relationships work--yes, in the long term.)

And as a semi-related note, D/s relationships DO evolve to accomodate life changes. Sometimes a submissive or Dominant will flat-out refuse to play anymore--and in a good, healthy relationship that's accepted. There are abusers out there, obviously, but they're not limited to the D/s scene. (I've seen at least two couples abandon D/s when outside influence becomes overwhelming or when the relationship stops being pleasant and starts being work.)


----------



## estrata (Dec 8, 2006)

I think the key thing is "self-awareness", which you said, and that is just what I was saying. D/S lifestyles are fine, as long as both partners are totally capable of accepting their roles. I was just pointing out that many people with low self-confidence may take on that role when it may not be healthy.

As long as both partners are fully willing, informed, and emotionally stable people, I definitely think a D/S relationship would work. I was just noting that it would be dangerous when one partner has low self-esteem, which I get the impression many BHMs have.


----------



## bigwideland (Dec 9, 2006)

I have seen the full range of relations in others from love to none at all, wives in fear of husband and visa vera, the submissive husband or wife looking for a new mum or dad, co-dependents, inderdepends, for we I what a person share stuff with but not everything, I hate being told what to do and dislike having to tell others what to do or look after them all the time.


----------



## Laina (Dec 9, 2006)

estrata said:


> I think the key thing is "self-awareness", which you said, and that is just what I was saying. D/S lifestyles are fine, as long as both partners are totally capable of accepting their roles. I was just pointing out that many people with low self-confidence may take on that role when it may not be healthy.
> 
> As long as both partners are fully willing, informed, and emotionally stable people, I definitely think a D/S relationship would work. I was just noting that it would be dangerous when one partner has low self-esteem, which I get the impression many BHMs have.



I think that also depends on the level of D/s. I see mostly M/f couples in my daily life, so I'm iffy on F/m knowledge...but the couples I know personally range from hardcore D/s (wherein she is a "slave girl", seated on the floor at mealtimes, and does not choose ANYTHING--including her own clothing) to the "Daddy's Little Girl" lifestyle. I think the former is what people imagine when they think of D/s, but the truth is that a very limited number of couples actually live that way. A great deal of them practice something somewhere in between the two, and two of my closest friends are definitely Daddy's little girls. Their relationships involve some discipline, but both women seem to thrive in that situation. 

Also, I should note that in a good D/s relationship, it's the sub who ultimately sets the pace. Anyone who thinks the Dominant is in complete control has never watched the true dynamic--a loving (dominant) partner in a D/s relationship is constantly monitoring their submissive and reevaluating their behavior toward them. ...kind of like any other healthy relationship, I suppose. Too, a good lifestyle couple will set up "free days" for communicating about their relationship. All those big, scary contracts aside, it's a relationship FIRST in most cases.

Which isn't to say that they're perfect for someone with low self esteem or emotional issues--just that they ARE workable, if that's what both partners desire.


----------



## love dubh (Dec 11, 2006)

Laina said:


> I think that also depends on the level of D/s. I see mostly M/f couples in my daily life, so I'm iffy on F/m knowledge...but the couples I know personally range from hardcore D/s (wherein she is a "slave girl", seated on the floor at mealtimes, and does not choose ANYTHING--including her own clothing) to the "Daddy's Little Girl" lifestyle. I think the former is what people imagine when they think of D/s, but the truth is that a very limited number of couples actually live that way. A great deal of them practice something somewhere in between the two, and two of my closest friends are definitely Daddy's little girls. Their relationships involve some discipline, but both women seem to thrive in that situation.
> 
> Also, I should note that in a good D/s relationship, it's the sub who ultimately sets the pace. Anyone who thinks the Dominant is in complete control has never watched the true dynamic--a loving (dominant) partner in a D/s relationship is constantly monitoring their submissive and reevaluating their behavior toward them. ...kind of like any other healthy relationship, I suppose. Too, a good lifestyle couple will set up "free days" for communicating about their relationship. All those big, scary contracts aside, it's a relationship FIRST in most cases.
> 
> Which isn't to say that they're perfect for someone with low self esteem or emotional issues--just that they ARE workable, if that's what both partners desire.



We actually had an entire sex convention here at Rutgers in the spring. One of the lectures/workshops was on D/s relationships. I really wanted to ask the general question of "what if the partner wanted to stop?" but didn't. The actual question, really, was "What if your submissive gets sick, you know, bedridden with the flu, does he still need to jump to your wishes?" 

But she did clarify one thing: To be submissive is not to be inferior.


----------



## Laina (Dec 11, 2006)

maire dubh said:


> We actually had an entire sex convention here at Rutgers in the spring. One of the lectures/workshops was on D/s relationships. I really wanted to ask the general question of "what if the partner wanted to stop?" but didn't. The actual question, really, was *"What if your submissive gets sick, you know, bedridden with the flu, does he still need to jump to your wishes?"*
> 
> But she did clarify one thing: To be submissive is not to be inferior.



While it varies from couple to couple, the general answer is "no". Even hardcore Dominants (who scare me, not gonna lie) would be likely to modify their orders. (Rather than "do the laundry and answer the door naked" they will give commands like "stay in bed until at least noon, then call me and we'll take it from there".) Common sense. Even if a Dominant is treating his/her submissive as if they ARE inferior (and I won't claim that it never happens--again, this kind of behavior occurs across the board) there's a sense of...ownership, I suppose, that makes a submissive worth caring for.


----------



## Mercedes (Dec 14, 2006)

Dominant or submissive, that's a difficult question to answer. As far as a general relationship goes for me the best thing is to do what each partner successfully and enjoyably does. I'd have no problem if my partner wants to stay at home, cook and take care of the house while I work or vice versa. After all I do work now... and come to think of it I'd tend to prefer the former?

As regards the sexual aspect, I love to take the lead sometimes though I exclusively prefer having a great big hunk on top - but is that submissiveness or is it that feeling of having a big soft body squishing which most of us ffa's die for?

Actually the "modification" and "inferiority" parts don't even enter the scenario for me.

Ultimately I think that as long as there is the big soft hunk for me I'd be happy.... :wubu:


----------



## AZ_Wolf (Dec 16, 2006)

Same here. I'm happy to be in charge or to receive sometimes, but not before anyone actively infringed on my health.  

And why didn't Rutgers host anything like that when I was there? :doh:


----------



## biggerisbetterx (Dec 16, 2006)

i am still a virgin T_T im so lonely. oh well even though i am, i can see that i would be a submissive type. hell id be a girl's pet prlly! im just too shy to get a girl. id love to find a dominant girl to feed me and get me fatter than ever. to make me her fat little pet. so id grow so fat i wouldn't be able to move. oh sorry i went on a tangent there.  oh well.


----------



## love dubh (Dec 17, 2006)

AZ_Wolf said:


> Same here. I'm happy to be in charge or to receive sometimes, but not before anyone actively infringed on my health.
> 
> And why didn't Rutgers host anything like that when I was there? :doh:



Oh, you missed the memo? Yeah, Rutgers isn't a university anymore. It's a land of sex, fun and hardcore music.

I'm majoring in Anarchy with double minors in dreamcatching and girls.


----------



## Laina (Dec 17, 2006)

maire dubh said:


> Oh, you missed the memo? Yeah, Rutgers isn't a university anymore. It's a land of sex, fun and hardcore music.
> 
> I'm majoring in Anarchy with double minors in dreamcatching and girls.



Score! I always wanted to major in Civil Disobedience, but my school cancelled it. =( I settled for Sociology with incredibly liberal professors. Almost the same thing.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Dec 17, 2006)

Laina said:


> Score! I always wanted to major in Civil Disobedience, but my school cancelled it. =( I settled for Sociology with incredibly liberal professors. Almost the same thing.



Almost?


----------



## Laina (Dec 17, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Almost?



Sometimes we're not civil.


----------



## GregW (Dec 20, 2006)

Me? submissive. definitely. Though I can be as assertive or compliant as a particular situation calls for.


----------



## otherland78 (Aug 23, 2008)

lemmink said:


> I've always been the dominant partner, but that was never dependent on my partner's side - I'm just a control freak.



Hmmm i yeah somehow but when it comes to girls i like to be dominated first and then yeah pay it ;_) a little back ;-) hehe yea a little balanced depending on the mood and naughtyness i would say.

:blush:


----------



## kittymahlberg (Aug 23, 2008)

I can only speak of what I'd like, as opposed to what I have or have had in past relationships. It's all theoretical in my case. 

All my life, until about a year ago, I was absolutely submissive. All I wanted was to find a guy comfortable enough in his own skin to boss me around. But I was an outgoing high-achiever, and most of the guys who showed an interest in me were the worshipper types. Everyone knew I was one of those "together" people. I don't mean to sound self-aggrandizing. I love what I do, but I hate the baggage of always being looked up to.

At last, I thought I'd found what I was looking for. We were friends for a long time, but it took me just a few weeks to figure out that his bravado was a big act. Even this guy, who had seemed so confident and outgoing, was at heart a big wimp. 

At that point, I think I gave up. It's almost as if, having decided that this protective, in-charge person didn't exist, I decided to become that person. In the past year or so, I've tended to be a lot more dominant. So I'm another example, I guess, of someone who can go both ways.


----------



## Ninja Glutton (Aug 23, 2008)

I actually enjoy both depending on my mood. Light bondage is sooooo hot.


----------



## BeerMe (Aug 24, 2008)

If it makes any sense, I've always liked to be _slightly_ submissive. Having a lady give you instructions on what to do next and how to do it is hot, but if there was ever any yelling or demanding, or ordering me to wear a leash while being spanked by a Cat of Nine Tails, I'd probably call it a night..


----------



## Surlysomething (Aug 24, 2008)

I'm a switch. I love him to be in control for about 75% of the sexual relationship but know when to just let me have my way when I need it.

Pretty much an Alpha bitch in everyday life.

I do SEEK out more dominant men. 
You know, to try and out-dom me.  And it always works. 
(I don't fight too hard though) 


I like big, manly men and I don't find them very submissive to begin with.


----------



## Kiyera (Aug 24, 2008)

Okay, first of all let me just observe that _man_, this thread is old. And I'm going to throw in my two shekels anyways.

I have dominant and submissive tendencies that tend to go with how I'm feeling at the time (when I'm sad and want to be cuddled, I'm submissive etc). However, looking back over the last few months, I've shown more submission in bed than I'm proud of. Since I have less sexual experience than my partner, my MO has generally been to let him move things along, but I do attempt to contribute new things in the bedroom. Recently though, I've felt like I should become more proactive in the bedroom and take control more often than I do. My partner has stated on multiple occasions that he is generally submissive and I've often felt like two submissive types in the bedroom doesn't really work because you spend all your time waiting for the other person to get on top.


----------

