|
|
|
My
Dominant must be Strong, My Submissive must be Thin; Is it biology or
just personal preference?
By Sensuous Sadie
SensuousSadie@aol.com
www.sensuoussadie.com
1963 pulp novel from Sadie's collection, A rare one with
a delicious plus sized gal |
And here's a nice strapping Dom for you- Master
Xavier. Yum! |
One
Dominant I know only dates slim, gorgeous women. When I asked him about
this he replied, (a little defensively) that he has a right to his
preferences. He's right of course, he does. Now the obvious problem with
this is that some of us not slim and not gorgeous Submissives might make
a wonderful partner for him. On the flip side, I also know a rather
large number of female Submissives who insist that their Dominants be
physically stronger than them. Is this the same issue? Maybe, maybe not.
So let's get off the superficial stuff about likes and dislikes, and
move into a little deeper territory.
On the one hand, we all do have our preferences and there's nothing
wrong with that. The trouble with this approach is that "preferring"
can get mixed up with refusing to give a chance to someone who doesn't
fit your definition of the perfect partner. A shrink friend of mine
refers to this as "shopping off the rack" for a partner. That
is, choosing partners by how they look hanging on the rack instead of
taking each one individually and getting to know them as people. Do I
need to list how this shopping around hurts us? Whether it be size,
looks, or the ability to write a complete sentence, all are superficial
and by definition incomplete ways to judge a potential partner.
So let's look at the "Stronger Dominant" idea. I do grok this
because it's darn fun to be taken down physically. The problem comes in
when it's not just a preference (it would be nice if my dream Dominant
were big and strapping) but when it's a requirement (he must be big and
strapping). In the latter, you again end up obliterating half your
potential audience of Dominants. If all women were weaker than all men,
well then things would be pretty easy because then every female
Submissive could have a strapping Dominant. But in fact, it's more of a
case of overlapping bell curves, which means that some percentage of
women are smaller and weaker than all men, and some percentage of men
are larger and stronger than all women, but the majority of us are in
the big overlapping section in the middle. In other words, human beings,
male and female aren't all that different when it comes to size and
weight, and you are doing a major disservice to yourself by insisting on
size as a principal component of your screening process.
In some areas, this bell curve is reversed such as in endurance running,
the kind where the runners run 100 miles in 24 hours. In the Vermont 100
Mile Endurance Run, over 200 runners run over Vermont back roads and
trails trying to keep under the 30 hour cutoff point, and a well-trained
few finish in under 24 hours. The current two winners are both women.
Hm.
My friend Matthew has a theory about this. His idea is that
physiologically, women choose men who are large and strong because they
are genetically pre-determined to want to have children with a father
who can supply them with food and protection. His view is a popularized
anthropological view, but like many theories in this area of science, it
can't be proven or disproven by anyone, including Mathew or me. There
are some clearly mushy parts to the theory. For example, if the caveman
were acting as a protector and able to use only his body to do so, then
clearly the larger person (or animal) would win. Of course cave people
used tools, which makes it more likely that the guy was protecting his
home with a stone-aged bat than with his hands, which also makes it
almost as likely that a pissed off cavewoman could do the same thing,
particularly when protecting her children. Think mama bear and her cubs.
Food gathering is another one of those things where Hollywood images
have saturated our cultural consciousness. Although we all love the
imagery of early humankind bringing in the bacon in the form of a wool
mammoth or some other behemoth, the majority of foodstuffs were
actually provided by women in the form of gathering. While hunting was a
necessity, primitive hunting tools meant that killing a large animal was
a hell of a lot harder than it is today with a rifle in hand. And with
men out of the home hunting, protection was often left by default to the
women. The result of all of this is that I question any assumption that
overall strength in itself was fundamental to early life, and by
extension a physiological part of women's makeup to want a strong
partner.
Let's bring this back to the present then. It's Matthew's premise that
the fundamental need for a strong male partner does not change even when
that strength may no longer be needed in today's culture. After all,
what good does being strong do when your job is being a network
administrator? What difference does strength make when a woman is fully
able to support herself both financially and otherwise? And if she does
not have, and never will have children, any "protection" is
meaningless except maybe when sneaking down an alley. More importantly,
aside from wrestling play in the context of BDSM, physical strength has
little or nothing to do with being a quality Dominant.
I submit that while our genetic code may urge women toward larger,
stronger men, it would be a great loss to humankind to not use our
intellect and rational mind to make healthy choices for ourselves. We
are creatures of our biology and of our intellect, which gives us the
option to ignore of our so-called instinctual urges. Along the same
lines I can't help but wonder where Mathew's theory leaves gays and
lesbians, as well as female Dominants and their male Submissives. If his
theory holds true, then straight male Submissives would want physical
weaker female Dominants and vice versa. I don't see that happening, do
you?
So that's my call for using our minds to make the best choices. I may
not have convinced either my male friend who wants the babes, or my
submissive gal pals who want Fred Flintstone, but maybe I'll make a wee
dent in the rest of you who might want a partner more than you want your
limitations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vermont 100 Mile Endurance Run
http://www.vermont100.com/
How to Spot a Dominant at Ten Paces
http://sensuoussadie.com/sadiescolumns/dom/howtospotadom.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sensuous Sadie is the author of It's Not About the Whip: Love, Sex,
and Spirituality in the BDSM Scene. Read an excerpt at http://www.trafford.com/robots/03-0551.html.
She is the founder and leader (1999 - 2001) of Rose & Thorn,
Vermont's first BDSM group. Comments, compliments and complaints, as
well as requests for reprinting can be addressed to her at SensuousSadie@aol.com
or visit her website at www.sensuoussadie.com.
Sadie believes the universe is abundant, and that sharing information
freely is part of this abundance, so she allows reprints of her writing
in most venues.
Copyright 2005 Sadie Sez Publications
|
|
|
