Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby TUfriend » Tue May 08, 2012 12:27 pm

So for an English project I was looking up different psycological disorders and off on a tangent discovered that he most common reasons people are into TUGs are either having too much power(subs) or not having enough power(doms). Later, in history, we were talking about slave owners in the 1800s. It got me thinking... do you think that there were slave owners who were into bondage, either doms or subs?
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.

See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.

Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

Re: Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby Jay Candice » Tue May 08, 2012 7:42 pm

If you ask me, the slavers were just a bunch of rich guys who were too lazy to do work themselves, and the slaves were either a bunch of people who lost a war, or had bad luck, or their parents were jerks and sold them into slavery. Just saying.
In the end, it matters not how many breaths you took, but how many took your breath away.
-shing xiong

We are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction
-General Douglas MacArthur

Fall down seven times, stand up eight
-Japanese Proverb

Re: Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby Koomza » Tue May 08, 2012 8:14 pm

Jay Candice wrote:If you ask me, the slavers were just a bunch of rich guys who were too lazy to do work themselves, and the slaves were either a bunch of people who lost a war, or had bad luck, or their parents were jerks and sold them into slavery. Just saying.

I can't help but feel you're simplifying history a bit too much. Maybe I'm nitpicky because World History was one of my favorite subjects this year but something about describing masters/slaves like this in the context of people like the Aztecs and locations like the French colonies bugs me.

Re: Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby Chris12 » Tue May 08, 2012 11:57 pm

I doubt the slavers actually made the effort to look at their slaves. They simply bought them and made the guards work them to the bone.

Re: Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby TUfriend » Wed May 09, 2012 4:38 pm

I'm saying like opposites. Like how it is more common for a powerful person to be a sub while it is more common for a quiet person to be on top, do you think there were slave holders who enjoyed being tied up.
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.

See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.

Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

Re: Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby sarobah » Thu May 10, 2012 3:50 am

This is actually quite a profound question. My guess is that the answer would be no, because slavery was founded primarily on economic exploitation and justified on cultural grounds. I imagine that slave-owners at all times in history would develop a particular mindset of absolute superiority that would not allow them to identify in any way with their slaves.
It seems to have been an historical pattern that the status of women in slave-holding societies was low for this same reason. The slave owners developed patterns of dominance that carried over into “normal” family and social life.
Anyway, that’s my theory.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu May 10, 2012 10:18 am

If anything I think the opposite of your hypothesis is more likely to be true Tufriend; with powerful people more likely becoming doms and the less powerful more likely to become subs. The latter especially, as it would be a good coping mechanism for dealing with their personal reality which they'd be unable to change. I developed a strongly sub personality when I was a kid for instance, and I was definitely NOT a powerful or privileged person by most standards. There may be some secret subs among the elite, but I'd say they're more likely to be outnumbered by the doms in their peer group, with the subs 'dominate' (so to speak) the less privileged ranks.
As for the slave owners and their slaves, relationships like that may have happened occasionally... just like some livestock owners had some improper relationships with their animals. In both cases such acts were considered so shameful as to be kept completely secret wherever and whenever they occurred.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby sarobah » Thu May 10, 2012 5:34 pm

There is an interesting comparison here with sexual fantasies and gender. From what I’ve read, successful, powerful men tend to have domination fantasies, while successful, powerful women tend to have submission fantasies.
I imagine that carries over into TUGs and more “serious” bondage. It certainly does with me :o)
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu May 10, 2012 8:31 pm

sarobah wrote:There is an interesting comparison here with sexual fantasies and gender. From what I’ve read, successful, powerful men tend to have domination fantasies, while successful, powerful women tend to have submission fantasies.
I imagine that carries over into TUGs and more “serious” bondage. It certainly does with me :o)

That could be true too, Sarobah. I was referring to men only for the most part since historically power has been almost exclusively a male privilege. I can't really say what women are like from experience - being a guy and with my TUGs experiences with women limited to one gf in high school. But she was a 'tough chick' (HER own words) and definitely a dom -at least when it came to TUGs. Although not from a rich family, it was prosperous enough to send her thru college. She became a career professional businesswoman, which is not terribly surprising as she had a strong personality. She always knew how to get what she wanted, that is for sure!!! It may be possible she became more submissive later in life, but she sure as Hell wasn't when *I* knew her!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby sarobah » Thu May 10, 2012 11:34 pm

Much of your gf’s personality describes me – assertive to the point of aggressive in school and in my professional life. In my private relationships, however, it’s the opposite. So I guess there’s no tried-and-true formula.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby TUfriend » Sat May 12, 2012 5:55 am

I don't know though... I consider myself pretty successful in school. 17th out of 300, all A's with a few B's. And people are always asking me for help. But on the other hand, I prefer being tied up over tieing other's up.
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.

See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.

Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

Re: Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat May 12, 2012 7:23 am

TUfriend wrote:I don't know though... I consider myself pretty successful in school. 17th out of 300, all A's with a few B's. And people are always asking me for help. But on the other hand, I prefer being tied up over tieing other's up.

I was a similarly bright student in school. However, this does not always translate to having a lot of power, because most of your less intellectual peers might not agree with you as to what is important (even if your teachers and parents and other adults do). Now, if you were the school jock (say, captain of your football team) that all the girls (and secretly some of the boys) wanted to date, or had the money to buy your own Porsche (or a limousine with driver better yet), that would probably be better examples of power and success for someone your age.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Psycology + History = Curiosity

Postby SamanthaBoundx » Sun May 13, 2012 12:10 pm

An interesting question - but I don't think there'd be much of a correlation between whether you are dominant or submissive in real life and whether your dominant or submissive in terms of bondage. There's just so much variation there that I find it quite hard to believe there's a strong relationship.

I mean, I'm a fairly dominant person in real life, but when it comes to bondage, I'm nearly always a sub. But I've known other people (men and women) who are dominant in real life who prefer to be dominant in bondage scenarios. The same goes for submissive people. I'm obviously just going by my own personal experience here haha, but maybe there's some truth in it.

I'd also add that the whole sexual domination/submission is linked to how much power you have is a fairly outdated idea. Like most Freudian concepts, it's thought to be far too simplistic - reducing something that's actually very complex down to a direct causal relationship. Granted, it's the most well-known idea, but if you look a little deeper then you'll probably find far more relevant research which provides a far more wholistic (not to mention interesting) interpretation of the whole thing :)

X