# Type and being sub/dom in sex



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

I don't know about MBTI, but I am an (enneagran tritype) 485 sx/so and I am hyper dominant. I don't have a submissive bone in my body.

ESTJ, ESTP, ENTJ are hyper dominant.
INTJ can be too, although I've known some foxy INTJ girls who deep down crave to be ravaged.


----------



## Sybow (Feb 1, 2016)

Even though I can take both sides. I think the sub position is more kinky.
Personally I'd call myself a switch. 

My pegging fetish does require a sub position tho.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Hexigoon said:


> Firstly, I don't think anyone consciously decides which kinks or sexual desires they're going to have. That's applying rational consideration to something pretty irrational and unconscious or maybe even genetic to some extent. I don't know how fetishes form exactly but I don't ever remembering choosing what I like sexually, so I would assume the same is true for most other people.


Yeah, that's interesting to think why and how fetishes and kinks form. Agreed that it most likely takes place subconciously. I can't generalize of course but I've thought about my own kinks and geeks and why they formed. Found at least some connections - those are related to certain types of female shapes and sexy outfits which suit them + fantasy that this type of woman has some "power" over me  It's even logical connection as who doesn't like women who know what they want and once, at some age, you start to notice them in sexual context - bang, new connection is subconciously formed  

I'm enfp and I see it as good example of Ne expansion of one concept -> multiple ones: for example, when I look at my lady and the "prerequistics" described above are met, it immediately expands to related fantasies in my mind.

Regarding the original question - I don't know if any of those preferences are type related but what i've noticed while discussing different people with any kind of interest about power dynamics, their type might affect how their preferences resolve in reality. For myself the interest is more about mental stimulation (smth like "invisible ropes") while for a few ISFP and ISTJ I know with similar interests need to be physically restrained to feel something similar. Might be coincidence of course as the sample set I've had possibility to observe isn't large enough


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

xNTP

While I not dominant in the degenerate BDSM sense (as I tend to relax, lie back and let someone else do the work while I drink a few beers and read Ovid), I am the master and everything that transpires accords to my design. I understand the true nature of power, which is to be fully satiated while expending the least amount of energy possible. If you think that chasing a woman down and heaving and puffing on top of her like some desperate wild animal will make you dominant, then you are an idiot of epic proportions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_effort


----------



## Analemma (Mar 2, 2020)

Hexigoon said:


> I'm not sure how dominant Ne would work in bed though.... it intrigues me.


Well, my ex-boyfriend is an ENFP and I wouldn’t say he was dominant but he had to be our relationship. Also, he had many insecurities which I am pretty sure affected our sex life, as well as his our perception of his role in bed. 

I believe I had an ENTP partner also, who was rather dominant. We had a short but enthusiastic relationship. With his knowledgeable attitude, I loved provoking and teasing him intellectually (he loved it too XD), it was like a foreplay. Sex was his way of showing who the boss is. I also think he is a dom in general but really need somebody who can challenge him outside of sex, which is actually making him even more dominant in bed. 

Both of them were open-minded lovers, willing to experiment. They were quick-learners also with understanding that everyone has different preferences and pleasures eager to know what mine specifically are. 


Hexigoon said:


> but I like the idea of them being vulnerable and showing they have a lot of trust in me. That means a lot.


That’s interesting. From my perspective sex is a way of showing I can be vulnerable in front of my partner, as I am usually the strong and decisive one in my relationships. Unfortunately, this seems to be a difficult dynamic to establish for me. 


tarmonk said:


> Regarding the original question - I don't know if any of those preferences are type related but what i've noticed while discussing different people with any kind of interest about power dynamics, their type might affect how their preferences resolve in reality.


Oh, that’s true. There’s no need to tie me, just tell me you would love to and leave things to my imagination. And if you actually do it, I may be even somehow disappointed because fantasies are always better than reality. The best foreplay happens in my head. :kitteh:


Inside Job said:


> I understand the true nature of power, which is to be fully satiated while expending the least amount of energy possible.


Oh my, that’s one of the sexiest things I’ve ever heard. :laughing:


Vesh said:


> Alpha Submissives


This sounds like a real thing to me XD 

Okay, so maybe after all, sub/dom is not related to type at all. But still it’s an interesting topic to me. Do you think we are born with a natural preference over sexual submissiveness/dominance? Also, how this affects our life in general?

I always thought that I am a sub because I need somebody to take in charge finally… But maybe it’s the opposite. Maybe I’m a sub, therefore, I am trying to control other aspects of my life. 

Or maybe I am trying to systematize all of this and put it in one huge narrow pattern for the sake of my own understanding, while it’s just a random dice roll. 

Oh, well… wine thoughts :laughing:
:winetime:


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I just like the freedom to do whatever feels like, otherwise I feel confinement and boredom. A partner who wants some strict role is prob not a great match for me. And I'm not really into anything BDSM script-like or otherwise extreme.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

@Analemma 

Observe two people in the midst of a negotiation - perhaps a car salesman or real estate agent trying to ply a new unsuspecting (and wealthy) victim. Notice that the "seller" is trying to convince the other, expressing passion and urgency, making suggestions and requests. The other, the "buyer", sits quietly and listens, likely offering no opinion. Which of these individuals would you say is dominant (i.e. has the most power in the interaction)? BDSM would say the first is because he/she is the more active party, but this completely ignores the fact that the first party is more active _because_ they have to expend effort in order to get what they want. If they ceased, no further action would likely take place. This is why very few of us would come to the conclusion that an individual who has to continuously initiate and push for satisfaction is powerful in any meaningful way. So why does this wisdom suddenly get thrown out in sexual situations?

A more indepth examination:


* *




The desire to exert control - to force another to slave away for your profit and therefore take lordship over them, whether sexually or otherwise - is a deadly temptation that the civilized individual must resist at all times. Alas, most women lack the agency to influence their environment directly, so in order to feel powerful, the next best option is to trick (at least some of) the men who can exert control into thinking that serving you is a sign of dominance. This explains why so many women try to if not restrict, at least delay sexual access to men. After all, if you could make someone work without a guaranteed reward for years on end, sacrificing their honor and dignity in the process, why wouldn't you do it? If I was a woman I would probably do this too.


----------



## Analemma (Mar 2, 2020)

@Inside Job, that’s an interesting concept and I can see the reasoning behind it but cannot fully agree with you. In the example you gave, the buyer is definitely having the dominant role but not because of the effort made but because they are in the position to choose. It could happen that the seller is not putting that much effort, which to the buyer may appear as the seller has other options (buyers), hence, more choices, and this would put the seller on a more dominant position (good sellers know how to fake that). 

In sex and relationships, in the initial stage men are the chasers placing in in a sub position putting much more effort. However, being a chaser doesn’t make you a sub, I believe. 

If we take a simple conversation for example, I believe that the one asking the questions is leading the conversation (I am interviewing at work so I am much more skilled in dominating a discussion than sex :laughing. So if I am speaking to a shy person, I may put more effort into the conversation to make them feel more comfortable and open up. If I am speaking with a more talkative person, I am also going to put more effort, maybe interrupt them politely a couple of times. And if I am talking to a more let’s say, arrogant person, I’m going to put the effort into appearing more confident, even more arrogant than them. But once I achieve my dominant position, it’s easier to lead the conversation and I put less effort in it. 

My point is that doms know when they need to put a greater effort and would not shy away from doing so, but keep their energy for the moments it’s indeed necessary to do so. Taking the path of least resistance doesn’t demonstrate dominance imo. 


Inside Job said:


> After all, if you could make someone work without a guaranteed reward for years on end, sacrificing their honor and dignity in the process, why wouldn't you do it?


We do this, or at least I do. And I am going to daily test your boundaries :laughing: But it’s your responsibility to show me where they are (I don’t know when to stop ). And if you don’t have any, then you will start sacrificing your honor and dignity, which is way too unattractive to me.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Analemma said:


> @Inside Job, that’s an interesting concept and I can see the reasoning behind it but cannot fully agree with you. In the example you gave, the buyer is definitely having the dominant role but not because of the effort made but because they are in the position to choose. It could happen that the seller is not putting that much effort, which to the buyer may appear as the seller has other options (buyers), hence, more choices, and this would put the seller on a more dominant position (good sellers know how to fake that).


As a result of the buyer having more choices, he or she exerts less effort. I think this is a good analogy for sexual dynamics because the more potential partners you have (as you note, the impression of potential does not always accord with reality), the less important it is to make a choice and commit. Of course, you can become overwhelmed with choice and fall into a state of inertia (we see this on dating apps) but that is a different problem and ultimately a luxury.



Analemma said:


> In sex and relationships, in the initial stage men are the chasers placing in in a sub position putting much more effort. However, being a chaser doesn’t make you a sub, I believe.


This is just an anecdote, but no relationship I've been in was initiated by me. I don't believe that men "are the chasers" and this is actually quite a modern trope (I have discussed why in other threads). It is true that women are more cautious on average due to lower testosterone levels, but I also think this trope is somewhat disrespectful to women, as it implies that they don't like sex as much as we do and need to be persuaded (and let's be frank here, all marketing is a form of emotional manipulation) to get frisky, which is not my experience either, especially after a few beers.



Analemma said:


> [MENTION=417009]If we take a simple conversation for example, I believe that the one asking the questions is leading the conversation (I am interviewing at work so I am much more skilled in dominating a discussion than sex :laughing. So if I am speaking to a shy person, I may put more effort into the conversation to make them feel more comfortable and open up. If I am speaking with a more talkative person, I am also going to put more effort, maybe interrupt them politely a couple of times. And if I am talking to a more let’s say, arrogant person, I’m going to put the effort into appearing more confident, even more arrogant than them. But once I achieve my dominant position, it’s easier to lead the conversation and I put less effort in it.


This is where I disagree. The one who leads the conversation and asks most of the questions is clearly more invested in an outcome, and in a job interview situation, you may be surprised just how effective feigning disinterest in the outcome can be. Again anecdotal: I don't like being asked personal questions, or any questions in a line of succession - I find it too interrogative and prefer to talk in a statement-response style (to borrow a term from musical form) where one person contributes observations and theories, then the other replies with their own, and so on. In fact, that is what we are doing right now. 



Analemma said:


> [MENTION=417009]My point is that doms know when they need to put a greater effort and would not shy away from doing so, but keep their energy for the moments it’s indeed necessary to do so. Taking the path of least resistance doesn’t demonstrate dominance imo.


My point is that it is not necessary to chase down someone else unless you have few options to begin with (or at least believe this to be the case). 



Analemma said:


> We do this, or at least I do. And I am going to daily test your boundaries :laughing: But it’s your responsibility to show me where they are (I don’t know when to stop ). And if you don’t have any, then you will start sacrificing your honor and dignity, which is way too unattractive to me.


If you want to flirt, send me a PM and we'll take it from there.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

It's interesting. I need to be naked among naked people to feel pure confidence. Most I've meet are not comfortable being naked infront of a naked man. I guess it's a common insecurity. Hence, when I'm with a person let me do and we'll be having a great time.

I know most have been surprised this low-life depressed angry sad silent weird male ISTP is able to show such confidence in bed (when I'm in the mood).


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@Analemma

I'm an ENTP and I'm of the opinion that partners should more-or-less of take turns, sometimes during the same intimate act (a little "push/pull" "give/take" "in/out" is always fun).There are times when I like being in charge and there are times when I like letting my partner being in charge. Which one is "dom" and which one is "sub" can be awfully subjective (pardon the pun) insofar as who is actually in charge. I often observe that subs actually have more power than doms. It is an interesting dichotomy I have not spent a whole lot of time studying. I like my sex to be varied and unscripted, so that's what I go with.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Analemma said:


> Oh, that’s true. There’s no need to tie me, just tell me you would love to and leave things to my imagination. And if you actually do it, I may be even somehow disappointed because fantasies are always better than reality. The best foreplay happens in my head. :kitteh:


What I've found over time is that reality can be as good as in fantasy  Doesn't apply for absolutely any kinky fantasy but for some it does. The trick is that you have to think and understand what's really behind it - it's not straightforward why some things excite us and thus couldn't necessarily be implemented 1:1. 

Years ago I was in the situation where we tried to implement some fantasies with my partner and at the beginning it was like, meh it's not even close to what I actually imagined, although the "scene" was exactly like that  Once we started to realize what's the root cause those things actually excite us, we've been able to make reality even better than fantasies  Though, can't say at all that finding out that root cause was easy - took a lot of time to reach that far  Also, some things might need to be implemented a bit differently than in your imagination, in order to achieve same feeling you're imagining.

Tricky part was that we have to realize nobody else can make us experience and feel what we want to - it's our own responsibility to create suitable mindset for that while at the same time, giving something back in return for our partner (and the opposite somehow seems to be a mistake for many people interested in power dynamics or bdsm, leaving the responsibility to their partner. In my opinion). It didn't work until I realized nobody else except myself is responsible for creating that experience.


----------

