Not my thing at all. I also really do not understand why some people get off on being a sub either. None of the stuff I have read makes any sense to me, especially the part about feeling safe? (6847)I don't want to give you a 'just so' story and take you back to the Savanna, but I think evolutionary-psychology could explain what is often being played out here.
I think the case has been made that being dominant is a high risk strategy, but it can be extremely fruitful, which is why we are all related to Genghis Khan... or something like that.
It seems to be most people's instinct is to assume that if dominance gets you to the top of the pile, submission must put you on the bottom of the pile. This is absurd, as it is those that refuse to submit to authority that find themselves on the margins of society, those that submit can get into the inner circle of those with the power... assuming they aren't useless idiots.
I give you our old friend, The Justicar!
I have to state that I am not suggesting for a moment that Justicar has a submissive personality, quite the opposite, his assertiveness would force him towards being dominant. But note that I'd be willing to bet that he fully understood what was expected of him not just in terms of a 'job' but the role he played. I would bet that he was not only extremely competent in his duties, but in matters beyond his duties too. He is intelligent, diligent, and yes... he is cute enough to be able to get away with being snarky.
In this role he would have had to have been submissive. More than that he probably would have had to stay three steps ahead to keep his boss happy. So not just passive but active.
But he is clearly telling you what the payoff is. He 'belongs' to one of the most powerful men in the regiment, so it would be a case of, "Nobody fucks with MY driver". Aside from that, he is in a position where he is on first name basis with the officer's wifes... which says says everything about his access to power.
I think I have made the case that being submissive, as long as you can also make yourself useful, can be a successful evolutionary strategy. I would also suggest it is actually a better strategy than being dominant because although you could fall alongside whoever you give your allegiance to, there is also a chance that you could survive and whoever usurped them will find you useful too.
But evolution doesn't work without reproduction, and there is some evidence that people in power tend towards high sex drives, and I'd suggest that submissive people are as likely to find power and aphrodisiac just like anybody else. My experiences would certainly suggest this.
So if we assume that dominant people are producing offspring with submissive people, how are they likely to turn out? Your guess is as good as mine as to what is nature and what is nurture, but I suspect that they are born with the potential to be either dominant or submissive.
I have asked people in the scene about their family and have noticed some trends. I will use my own family as an example. I can think of nobody within my family who is not either dominant (domineering) or submissive. There is a fair scattering of homosexuals and bisexuals in my family. Neither gender or sexuality is a predictor of dominance or submission, although the women tend towards being dominant. Some of the women in my family who are submissive will assume the role of dominant (to the point of abusive and violent behavior) when not partnered with a dominant man. Submissive people are capable of being very manipulative when it suits them. Dominants will partner with others that are equally dominant.
Some of my grandparents and parents generation entered into marriages of convenience to hide their homosexuality, yet these partnerships were still one of a dominant and a submissive.
Also interesting is the career choices of my family who tend towards the military, police, fire service, nursing and education. All careers with a very structured hierarchy.
So my hypothesis, is that there really are 'born leaders', but there are also born followers and that they come from the same stock.
I won't bore you with more detail, but I am aware that much of this is learned behavior. However I do think there is a nature part to this. When it comes to BDSM, there are a lot of people who play at it, but there are those who can't really do it any other way, (just as DeepInsideYourMind says). Where it gets confusing for people on the outside is the sex part, especially kinky sex. I can't say that it isn't about sex, but it doesn't have to be about sex. But power is an aphrodisiac. And sex is very intimate, connected with trust and vulnerability. Many of the kinks and fetishes somehow involve primal instincts, some kind of pack behavior or have some relation to power and control. Somehow it all comes together.
I hope this makes the subject a little less mysterious.