Advice/Help Why is everyone interested in being a sub?

[ladida]

Hello! As a girl who prefers to play a switch character in mxm/fxf. People write they will only play submissive/female roles in almost ever thread i've ever come across.

This may seem like a stupid question but i really don't understand why it's this common to be in almost every thread i've read.

 

[Idea]

A) Because it's closer to the real life personalities of the people playing those characters. This extends to associated traits, like shyness, anxiety or confidence, or socialization issues, which a good portion of roleplayers have on RPN.

B) Because it's easier to write a more passive character than a more active one, or one which does not have to take the initiative as much versus one which takes most of the initiative

C) A little counter-intuitive, but being the character "something is done to" has a bigger sense of protagonism than "being the character that does". Which seems completely backward, but the fact is that often the central event of the plot is on the character "something is done to", thus making that character more central to the story, at least as far as the sensation of it goes.

D) Building on the theme of "easier" I mentioned earlier, "dominant" characters tend to be expected to have a bigger degree of competence than "submissive" ones. This doesn't mean more powerful, just more competent, so it's more taxing on the dominant part.

E) Players like feeling like their character is being paid proper attention to, and the "dominant" character is often focused on the "submissive" one, but the reverse will easily not be the case, not in the beginning anyway.

 

[ladida]

A) Because it's closer to the real life personalities of the people playing those characters. This extends to associated traits, like shyness, anxiety or confidence, or socialization issues, which a good portion of roleplayers have on RPN.

B) Because it's easier to write a more passive character than a more active one, or one which does not have to take the initiative as much versus one which takes most of the initiative

C) A little counter-intuitive, but being the character "something is done to" has a bigger sense of protagonism than "being the character that does". Which seems completely backward, but the fact is that often the central event of the plot is on the character "something is done to", thus making that character more central to the story, at least as far as the sensation of it goes.

D) Building on the theme of "easier" I mentioned earlier, "dominant" characters tend to be expected to have a bigger degree of competence than "submissive" ones. This doesn't mean more powerful, just more competent, so it's more taxing on the dominant part.

E) Players like feeling like their character is being paid proper attention to, and the "dominant" character is often focused on the "submissive" one, but the reverse will easily not be the case, not in the beginning anyway.

thank you, it's just really confusing how no one i saw was interested in writing a switch.

 

[Idea]

thank you, it's just really confusing how no one i saw was interested in writing a switch.

Well, the thing is if you're not interested in a stable power dynamic between the characters, you're probably not using those terms in the first place. Not to mention people like me, for whom the use of terms like submissive and dominant is a bit of a red flag, partly due to associations with smut content and partly due to often players using those terms limiting their character's personalities very much to that.

As such, I would recommend maybe trying to reframe your approach. Instead of directly going "I want to us to play a switch each" try to create plots that involve more the sort of character dynamic you see in them.

 

[ladida]

Well, the thing is if you're not interested in a stable power dynamic between the characters, you're probably not using those terms in the first place. Not to mention people like me, for whom the use of terms like submissive and dominant is a bit of a red flag, partly due to associations with smut content and partly due to often players using those terms limiting their character's personalities very much to that.

As such, I would recommend maybe trying to reframe your approach. Instead of directly going "I want to us to play a switch each" try to create plots that involve more the sort of character dynamic you see in them.

never said i approached people like that, just said it was in every thread ive read.

top/bottom is a sign of smut while dom/sub exists in almost every relationship.

 

[Idea]

never said i approached people like that, just said it was in every thread ive read.

Alright

top/bottom is a sign of smut while dom/sub exists in almost every relationship.

Oh I know that’s not how people generally use it here on RPN. But knowing that doesn’t ease the discomfort from its uses I’ve seen in other places.

 

[nerdy tangents]

So this is just my two cents but in my experience people don’t tend to view healthy relationships in terms of dom/sub. Nor do they really use the term switch outside of the bedroom.

At best dom/sub is using heteronormative gender roles to describe a relationship (consciously or unconsciously) and at worst it gives off abuse apologia vibes.

In my experience if you want to deal with people who write realistic relationships then you need to just pitch a slow burn romance.

As that term attracts people who are looking to write character chemistry in as realistic a manner as possible.

Not to say they still don’t do tropes and won’t fall into a “dom/sub” dynamic but they do it more realistically.

(I would clarify your position on BDSM, as there are people on this site that will mean it in that context as well and ya wanna make where you stand on that pretty clear)

 

[Corrosion]

People want to be submarines? Can't argue with that, submarines are awesome.

 

[Syntra]

I think it's mostly just laziness, tbh. To me, only playing 'sub' roles (whatever that means outside of smut roleplays) is suspect and hints at the person being passive re: taking control of the narrative. Probably not true in all cases, but that's what it looks like to me.

 

[Crayons]

I think it's mostly just laziness, tbh. To me, only playing 'sub' roles (whatever that means outside of smut roleplays) is suspect and hints at the person being passive re: taking control of the narrative. Probably not true in all cases, but that's what it looks like to me.

I agree. I don't want to condemn these people if anyone has legit good reasons for always wanting to play a submissive character but it strikes me as laziness and unwillingness to do their share of the legwork. A lot of players are like this even without proclaiming that they want to play submissive/passive characters, in my experience.

 

[Chordling]

People want to be submarines? Can't argue with that, submarines are awesome.

Specifically yellow submarines.

ladida You may find this previous discussion interesting. It touches upon similar topics in a more specific context.

 

[Murdergurl]

I think it's mostly just laziness, tbh. To me, only playing 'sub' roles (whatever that means outside of smut roleplays) is suspect and hints at the person being passive re: taking control of the narrative. Probably not true in all cases, but that's what it looks like to me.

I gotta agree with this. Playing as a sub, basically translates to: YOU lead, I'll follow.

Playing the submissive means that their narrative is mostly reactionary. The other writer has to set up the scene and take initiative. I'm not saying it is ALWAYS like this, but 99% of the time it is. Personally, I avoid using terms like submissive and dominant and switch when describing a character. It's too vague and boxed in. Instead, I describe their personality in a bio (sometimes), and I also let the reader determine what they are through the context of their actions. I get that a lot of romance RPs basically live on the Dom/sub dynamic. But I find the whole label thing very limiting.