Nice article. Dominance is however unmistakably part of personality. There are several versions of the so called five factor model that in today’s psychology is used to describe personality. One of the five factors is the Extraversion scale. Each five factors have underlying sub-factors that explain the construct the respective factor. In case of extraversion (scale extroversion-introversion) these sub factors are sociability, social skill, ambition, adventurism, dominance and expressiveness. So, as a sub scale to Extraversion psychology does recognise dominance as a such. Of course the opposite of dominance -to make it a scale- must be something like submission.
As each sub scale can be measured trough questionnaires to determine where a person is on the sub scale, submission is not per se linked to Introversion only. No it can also exist in Extravert people as a single low(er) score on Dominance.
But definitely it is part of how modern psychology looks at personality traits.
Yes, the Big 5 does seem like the most reliable way to understand personality. And I do think that "natural" dominants and submissives - the ones with Even More in the Shadow - probably have corresponding scores on their traits or aspects, though I might factor in Agreeability and Neuroticism... which perhaps explains switches and different flavours of dominants.
However, my impression from talking to a lot of people is that the link between traits and kink orientation is complicated by fetish and - I don't have a modern technical term for this - catharsis.
So, somebody might not look submissive on the Big 5, but from time to time enjoy getting tied up and whipped because they simply have a fetish for it, and/or because it's a break from more dominant behaviour. Part-time dominants seem similar... not much different from people who enjoy violent video games but wouldn't go near a real fight. The important thing is that the D/s roles for these people are fleeting but still authentic. The Shadow seems like a good metaphor for describing this phenomenon.
I generally don't address the Big 5 directly because it's not really clear how the traits combine to create D/s orientation, so it's an extra level of detail that doesn't really add anything. In the same way, I don't address endorphins etc - it's enough to note that for some of us, pain in certain circumstances gives us a buzz.
Interesting article, as always with your articles on psychology and D/s. I see aspects of myself in what you describe and other aspects that don't match, or maybe they do slightly, or maybe they once did. If I reread it tomorrow, maybe I'd see more or less. Nice pop culture references, too--makes me want to watch Penny Dreadful.
Hey this is my proof that I am going to catch up on emails tonight.
I've got to be honest I am shit right now at suggesting anything constructive criticism wise.
My thoughts turn to the parallels between what you describe and myself, how they are similar but very different. I knew I was submissive at the age of 14, and by submissive I mean I knew I wanted that role primarily in the bedroom, but I wanted it very strongly indeed so I always wanted a Total Power exchange 24/7 scenario. I pursued it. I read about it. I fantasized about it. Everywhere I turned I would find dominants with flaws that I couldn't remain with, but I also find other submissives more so than I find other dominants and then they lead to friendships rather than long term relationships.
Does this imply I'm not actually submissive in some way? Because I didn't stick with the toxicity and flaws as you claim many subs do?
Absolutely not. I think I have another rule covering that.
I think the big problem for subs at this stage in history is that it takes a certain something to *own* being a dominant, and that something may often be... the kind of personality flaws you describe.
Nice article. Dominance is however unmistakably part of personality. There are several versions of the so called five factor model that in today’s psychology is used to describe personality. One of the five factors is the Extraversion scale. Each five factors have underlying sub-factors that explain the construct the respective factor. In case of extraversion (scale extroversion-introversion) these sub factors are sociability, social skill, ambition, adventurism, dominance and expressiveness. So, as a sub scale to Extraversion psychology does recognise dominance as a such. Of course the opposite of dominance -to make it a scale- must be something like submission.
As each sub scale can be measured trough questionnaires to determine where a person is on the sub scale, submission is not per se linked to Introversion only. No it can also exist in Extravert people as a single low(er) score on Dominance.
But definitely it is part of how modern psychology looks at personality traits.
You raise an important point!
Yes, the Big 5 does seem like the most reliable way to understand personality. And I do think that "natural" dominants and submissives - the ones with Even More in the Shadow - probably have corresponding scores on their traits or aspects, though I might factor in Agreeability and Neuroticism... which perhaps explains switches and different flavours of dominants.
However, my impression from talking to a lot of people is that the link between traits and kink orientation is complicated by fetish and - I don't have a modern technical term for this - catharsis.
So, somebody might not look submissive on the Big 5, but from time to time enjoy getting tied up and whipped because they simply have a fetish for it, and/or because it's a break from more dominant behaviour. Part-time dominants seem similar... not much different from people who enjoy violent video games but wouldn't go near a real fight. The important thing is that the D/s roles for these people are fleeting but still authentic. The Shadow seems like a good metaphor for describing this phenomenon.
I generally don't address the Big 5 directly because it's not really clear how the traits combine to create D/s orientation, so it's an extra level of detail that doesn't really add anything. In the same way, I don't address endorphins etc - it's enough to note that for some of us, pain in certain circumstances gives us a buzz.
I've written up my more developed thoughts here, if you are interested: https://femdom.substack.com/p/do-natural-dommes-and-subs-exist
Interesting article, as always with your articles on psychology and D/s. I see aspects of myself in what you describe and other aspects that don't match, or maybe they do slightly, or maybe they once did. If I reread it tomorrow, maybe I'd see more or less. Nice pop culture references, too--makes me want to watch Penny Dreadful.
I think the Shadow complicates things!
Eva Green in Penny Dreadful is wonderful.
Hey this is my proof that I am going to catch up on emails tonight.
I've got to be honest I am shit right now at suggesting anything constructive criticism wise.
My thoughts turn to the parallels between what you describe and myself, how they are similar but very different. I knew I was submissive at the age of 14, and by submissive I mean I knew I wanted that role primarily in the bedroom, but I wanted it very strongly indeed so I always wanted a Total Power exchange 24/7 scenario. I pursued it. I read about it. I fantasized about it. Everywhere I turned I would find dominants with flaws that I couldn't remain with, but I also find other submissives more so than I find other dominants and then they lead to friendships rather than long term relationships.
Does this imply I'm not actually submissive in some way? Because I didn't stick with the toxicity and flaws as you claim many subs do?
Absolutely not. I think I have another rule covering that.
I think the big problem for subs at this stage in history is that it takes a certain something to *own* being a dominant, and that something may often be... the kind of personality flaws you describe.
https://femdom.substack.com/p/rule-3-treat-malesub-as-an-orientation