Are subs not enough of a challenge?

Are subs not enough of a challenge? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

AAkasha -> Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 11:30:52 AM)
I found a box of old journals from college and have been browsing through them. There was a section when I was dating a pretty vanilla guy for a little while, and it reminded me of some of the indepth conversations we had about my kink (mostly how I got that way, why I liked what I did, what motivated me, etc.) One of the things he said to me, as an outsider to kink, was "Aren't submissive guys not enough of a challenge for you?" What he was getting at is that they (subs) were ready and willing to serve and just looking for someone (sometimes, looking for ANYONE) to serve, vs. someone who was not interested in finding someone to serve, but found themselves unable to resist serving once the connection was there. There are good and bad thinngs about being "a challenge," though, which is an entirely different discussion. But for the purposes of this thread, are submissive guys "too easy"? Akasha

earthycouple -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 11:35:59 AM)
S oh dear heavens no. I find a new challenge in every one I meet. A submissive is still a person with thoughts feelings needs and wants. Anything that is not paper flat in personality requires attention and I find a challenge. I've never met a submissive guy who was too easy.

LaTigresse -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 11:46:45 AM)
I don't know about challenge persay. I find that as times goes on I tend to gravitate towards two different types of women. Those that either are, or very nearly, switch. And those that identify as slaves, wanting to give everything over, yet have a very strong personality outside of that facet of themselves. The first (in the women that I have known )have tended to have a very clearly defined submission within them, almost a slavelike tendency, just needing to find the one person that they can feel compelled to offer that part of themself to. They are very sure of that part of themself and what it is to them. Either way they must be able to think and converse......challenge me with ideas and new goals. The type that I tend to lose interest in more often define as submissive but have been more kink oriented, what they want me to do to/for them. Less so about anything I want or any real power structure. I am moreso interested in a balance of both person's needs, all within a Ms relationship. Then there are those that identify as slaves but are, in my opinion, bottoms. "I want to belong to you so that you will keep me locked up, beat me, torture me, use me, dressed in ....(my favourite fetish wear).... all according to my kinks, fetishes, desires. BUT, I don't do dishes, work, or basically give a shit about you, or what you want".

rob425 -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 12:05:55 PM)
I come out and say I don't submit to just anyone is a dominant. When a vanilla person thinks submissive, they most likely think the extreme, which is a submissive has a submissive personality all the time. Partically true yes but that personality isn't seen by everyone I talk to because I understand that being submissive in the real world day to day isn't the best thing to do.

littlesarbonn -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 12:27:57 PM)
To be honest, I can't think of a more challenging person than myself. I personally have great respect for any woman that has ever had to deal with me for more than a few hours.

stockingluvr54 -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 1:45:49 PM)
lmao! I'm thinking kind of like sarbonn....a challenge at least...lol! More like a real project. I know it's in there but it's buried way down in there and it'll take one helluva Lady with lots of patience and understanding to peel the crap away to get to it....

thetammyjo -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 1:54:27 PM)
I think your vanilla boyfriend at the time was asking more about your particular interests instead of making a general claim about submissives or dominants. I think after several years of reading things by you, Akasha, here and on other email lists and groups, that you are attracted to the vanilla and you a thrill from doing what might be considered kinky with them. I don't think, for example, that you find Fox very intriguing at all. You just aren't interested in what we might think of as a submissive man. Am I even slightly correct? While Fox is not a challenge in any negative why he is certainly not easy in any way at all. I consider myself very honored to have earned his submission and service because he would not give himself to just anyone and has flat out told me that he has zero interest in being a slave for anyone other than me. He does not identify as a slave but as my slave for example. Why I can see myself owning others he cannot see himself being owned by anyone and cannot see himself seeking out anything more than part-time Ds or kink for flavor in the future.

SweetDommes -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 1:55:06 PM)
We prefer guys who already know that they want to serve. We aren't interested in the desparate variety - the ones who are looking for someone, ANYONE to give them an order ... but the ones who know that they want to be submissive to someone that they care for - there is nothing sexier to us than a confident male who knows not only what he wants, but how to verbalize it and where to look for it. As for not presenting a challenge ... any relationship is a challenge, and getting to know someone to have a relationship with them is a whole miriad of challenges. We'll stick to looking for someone who already knows that he's submissive and not mess with trying to find a 'vanilla' guy to fit in with us - that would be way too challenging.

AAkasha -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 2:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I think your vanilla boyfriend at the time was asking more about your particular interests instead of making a general claim about submissives or dominants. I think after several years of reading things by you, Akasha, here and on other email lists and groups, that you are attracted to the vanilla and you a thrill from doing what might be considered kinky with them. I don't think, for example, that you find Fox very intriguing at all. You just aren't interested in what we might think of as a submissive man. Am I even slightly correct? While Fox is not a challenge in any negative why he is certainly not easy in any way at all. I consider myself very honored to have earned his submission and service because he would not give himself to just anyone and has flat out told me that he has zero interest in being a slave for anyone other than me. He does not identify as a slave but as my slave for example. Why I can see myself owning others he cannot see himself being owned by anyone and cannot see himself seeking out anything more than part-time Ds or kink for flavor in the future. You are right that a submissive man, for the most part, rarely can interest me, if he approaches me with "balls out submission" - which is often the standard approach (less these days, which is nice). However, the right submissive man, I have found, can blow a vanilla man out of the water, because he has a far greater tolerance and understanding and compassion for me as a kinky person and knows what that is like. My challenge is that I only dominated vanilla men for the first 5 years of my "kink awareness" and by the time I came across "submissives" I was bombarded with their overzealous approach, "me first" attitude (that comes with many, not all) but mostly their meek demeanor and "drop of a hat" submission - after all, their goal is to become that submissive they desire, so it's natural that they slip into that role with ease. What I find interesting is that it is nearly universal that most dominant women do seek an outward "shell" at least of a man who is toned down as far as submissive goes (not meek, weak, or grovelling, or offering up no-limits, take me now surrender), and reserves that approach for an appropriate woman at an appropriate time. Yet, so few sub men make an attempt to tone it down and hold it, cherished, until the proper time to give it over (hence, the challenge part). Instead, it's wide open and out there, ready, for sometimes anyone, as long as she is willing to take it. I think a great many submissives have so much more to offer if they could bring it down a notch, "vanilla"-ize their appropach just a bit, and let a dominant woman do the peeling of the onion. That's not even a "challenge" so much as it's a "project" and I think most dominant women enjoy peeling the layers to get to the juicy, submissive "center." The interesting part of this particular discussion is what constitutes a challenge. Submissive men can be a challenge without being "difficult" per se; just slightly less transparent. Akasha

LadyClaudiaVan -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 3:33:05 PM)
Personally, I myself would maybe tend to re-phrase the question as: "Are certain men who submit just not challenging enough?" It seems to me you by the way you write that you separate men and subs as if subs are not men. Subs are not different from men. They are men who just happen to be submissive to their women.

LadyClaudiaVan -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 3:34:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rob425 I come out and say I don't submit to just anyone is a dominant. When a vanilla person thinks submissive, they most likely think the extreme, which is a submissive has a submissive personality all the time. I would have to say I agree.

NefertariReborn -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 5:34:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I think your vanilla boyfriend at the time was asking more about your particular interests instead of making a general claim about submissives or dominants. I think after several years of reading things by you, Akasha, here and on other email lists and groups, that you are attracted to the vanilla and you a thrill from doing what might be considered kinky with them. I don't think, for example, that you find Fox very intriguing at all. You just aren't interested in what we might think of as a submissive man. Am I even slightly correct? While Fox is not a challenge in any negative why he is certainly not easy in any way at all. I consider myself very honored to have earned his submission and service because he would not give himself to just anyone and has flat out told me that he has zero interest in being a slave for anyone other than me. He does not identify as a slave but as my slave for example. Why I can see myself owning others he cannot see himself being owned by anyone and cannot see himself seeking out anything more than part-time Ds or kink for flavor in the future. You are right that a submissive man, for the most part, rarely can interest me, if he approaches me with "balls out submission" - which is often the standard approach (less these days, which is nice). However, the right submissive man, I have found, can blow a vanilla man out of the water, because he has a far greater tolerance and understanding and compassion for me as a kinky person and knows what that is like. My challenge is that I only dominated vanilla men for the first 5 years of my "kink awareness" and by the time I came across "submissives" I was bombarded with their overzealous approach, "me first" attitude (that comes with many, not all) but mostly their meek demeanor and "drop of a hat" submission - after all, their goal is to become that submissive they desire, so it's natural that they slip into that role with ease. What I find interesting is that it is nearly universal that most dominant women do seek an outward "shell" at least of a man who is toned down as far as submissive goes (not meek, weak, or grovelling, or offering up no-limits, take me now surrender), and reserves that approach for an appropriate woman at an appropriate time. Yet, so few sub men make an attempt to tone it down and hold it, cherished, until the proper time to give it over (hence, the challenge part). Instead, it's wide open and out there, ready, for sometimes anyone, as long as she is willing to take it. I think a great many submissives have so much more to offer if they could bring it down a notch, "vanilla"-ize their appropach just a bit, and let a dominant woman do the peeling of the onion. That's not even a "challenge" so much as it's a "project" and I think most dominant women enjoy peeling the layers to get to the juicy, submissive "center." The interesting part of this particular discussion is what constitutes a challenge. Submissive men can be a challenge without being "difficult" per se; just slightly less transparent. Akasha I'm with you on this. I find that I am not attracted to overly meek men ....even though dream identifies as a slave to Me, he isn't "slave-ish" anywhere else. That turns Me on. The fact that there were other Dommes after him and he was in no hurry to kneel caught My attention from the beginning. his profile too was challenging in a way. In fact I disliked it intensely and told him so and there began the friendship. Butttttttttttt that's just Me, I liked the tethered lion metaphor more than the weak kitten.

VeryMercurial -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 5:39:29 PM)
I agree, I don't like weak minded men that will submit to anyone that has the title of Mistress in front of her name. I like a submissive that is also very picky of the Mistress he selects.

Jasmyn -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/25/2007 5:57:09 PM)
Men are men ... submissive or not ... they're all either a huge challenge or a huge walkover ... submission has nothing to do with it ... It's the individual that inspires me ... not the label or abscence of one

pixelslave -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/26/2007 9:49:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha What I find interesting is that it is nearly universal that most dominant women do seek an outward "shell" at least of a man who is toned down as far as submissive goes (not meek, weak, or grovelling, or offering up no-limits, take me now surrender), and reserves that approach for an appropriate woman at an appropriate time. Yet, so few sub men make an attempt to tone it down and hold it, cherished, until the proper time to give it over (hence, the challenge part). Instead, it's wide open and out there, ready, for sometimes anyone, as long as she is willing to take it. I think a great many submissives have so much more to offer if they could bring it down a notch, "vanilla"-ize their appropach just a bit, and let a dominant woman do the peeling of the onion. That's not even a "challenge" so much as it's a "project" and I think most dominant women enjoy peeling the layers to get to the juicy, submissive "center." Interesting comments Akasha, particularly in light of the strong negative reactions I've often read voiced here on CM or elsewhere in reaction to a man saying "I may be a submissive, but I'm not your submissive". And for the record, I do agree with the essence of what you've said. [&:] - pixel Collared to Majik

SweetDommes -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/26/2007 10:48:29 PM)
Just a note, Pixel ... normally when I see someone using those words on these boards, it's an excuse to be a rude little prig - not simply because they aren't bowing and scraping to everyone. I have no problem with someone saying "well, I'm not your submissive" to someone demanding submission at random, but when someone says it as an excuse to be rude and obnoxious, I'm always going to react negatively.

NefertariReborn -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/27/2007 12:52:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SweetDommes Just a note, Pixel ... normally when I see someone using those words on these boards, it's an excuse to be a rude little prig - not simply because they aren't bowing and scraping to everyone. I have no problem with someone saying "well, I'm not your submissive" to someone demanding submission at random, but when someone says it as an excuse to be rude and obnoxious, I'm always going to react negatively. What She said!

interestingtimes -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/27/2007 2:31:04 AM)
Laughs alot, you must be my twin...

undergroundsea -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/27/2007 5:52:32 AM)
There is room for interpretation for what it means to be easy or a challenge. One interpretation is that a submissive is a challenge if he does not submit and instead resists for sake of ego like a vanilla man would, which is a reasonable interpretation based on OPs writings. The more potential a scenario has to become reality, the more powerful the thought of it is for me. My early fantasies involved forced submission because at the time this scenario seemed to be the only possibility to achieve D/s. At that time I did not know about BDSM or did not have a way to meet others in BDSM and, thus, my fantasy of being forced into submission reflected my reality then. Now I rarely think about forced submission. Now I think about and am more aroused by voluntary submission because it better fits my reality and has more potential to happen. My present reality of submission is to submit to someone for whom I feel attraction and appropriate connection--the submission is driven not by force or by being broken but by how I feel about the person. quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I think after several years of reading things by you, Akasha, here and on other email lists and groups, that you are attracted to the vanilla and you a thrill from doing what might be considered kinky with them. I don't think, for example, that you find Fox very intriguing at all. You just aren't interested in what we might think of as a submissive man. I see your point and I think it has most to do with a penchant for emotional SM. I think a want to break a person, or see a struggle before one or as one submits suggests an interest in emotional SM. A sub who is enthusiastic about a given activity that is meant to create hardship perhaps does not feed emotional SM. A vanilla man would better feed this want. I think submission takes form through another path where instead of an ego struggle one sees happiness in the submissive as he willingly submits to a person to whom he wants to submit. In my opinion, this path is most common. I identify primarily with D/s and SM is secondary. For some it may be the other way around. For some, only one may carry appeal. I think each approach is valid and that there are different approaches is relevant for compatibility. Cheers, Sea

petdave -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (7/29/2007 11:49:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha What I find interesting is that it is nearly universal that most dominant women do seek an outward "shell" at least of a man who is toned down as far as submissive goes (not meek, weak, or grovelling, or offering up no-limits, take me now surrender), and reserves that approach for an appropriate woman at an appropriate time. Yet, so few sub men make an attempt to tone it down and hold it, cherished, until the proper time to give it over (hence, the challenge part). i've also found this to be an interesting/depressing and nearly universal paradox. i would propose, as one of said Untouchables, that making an "attempt to tone it down" would constitute an act; to be blunt, a lie. Or perhaps more precisely a fabrication. i consider any of the above to be an unacceptable basis for a relationship. Some a.e unwilling to lie "Take me as I am, or not at all" Some are simply bad actors For example, i might be able to fake confidence for a little while, under circumstances that were foreseen, or at least reaonably common/predictable, and in the limited and time-expanded world of the 'Net, i could "pass" well enough if i had to... But in any kind of a real-time interaction... pfft. i doubt i could make it through a four-course dinner without setting off the "doormat loser" alarm, and only a food would lay money on a successful repeat performance. Unless i got her really wasted first, but that's poor form. Roofies- they're not just for Dominants anymore! A similar question might be "Why don't they just change their skin tone to match their surroundings as a more effective form of camouflage?" They CAN'T. A better question might be "What factors generate this 'doormat' mutation, and how can they be manipulated so that no more of these poor maladaptive wretches are produced? Now that will get you the Nobel for reducing BDSM community drama!

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125