Noah -> RE: What to do when you don't like what you do. (12/13/2007 4:15:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patwi Here's the thing. So - I have submissive fantasties sometimes, deep down I'm afraid I may even be *gasps* actually submissive. THAT'S what I hate. I don't -want- to bring it up to my husband, because iI don't -want- to be submissive. See my dilemma? So, here's the root of my question. Can a person change? Maybe that's the root or maybe it isn't. In case it is, what change are you asking about? A change from your current position to one in which you accept and explore your submissiveness? Or a change to a position in which you have left your submissive urges behind? I think the blanket advice heard here and elsewhere to "always be yourself" is noise at best if it means "act on all of your persistent urges". Some urges are toward things which simply aren't good. Maybe acting out your submissive urges wouldn't be good for you. One way way to "be yourself" is to take responsibility for your urges and the morality of the behaviors they promote and then make decisions and live by them. Maybe the root of the issue isn't found in the question you cited, though. Maybe it is somewhere closer to this bit: quote:
I've examined why I don't like it. All I can come up with is simply - I don't find it a good way to be. I don't like it or the implications as far as what it means for me, personally. If that makes any sense...heh. What does "good" mean when you say it? There are so many possibilities. What are "the implications" as you see or imagine them? Having no experience with the subject at hand it would be very easy for you to attribute implications which don't actually obtain, or to fail to account for important implications which do in fact obtain. So what you've said here makes good sense, in my view. It just doesn't go very far. Or maybe the root of the issue lies closer to your stated (in another post) preference to remain impaired rather than seeking help for a problem you can't resolve yourself. You aren't self-sufficient. No one is. If you tell yourself you are then you aren't being frank. Self-deceit is no more honorable than decieving any other person you care about. It possibly even more dangerous. It is very easy to envision the story of a woman who makes a conscious effort to be ever-so-in-control (e.g. refusing to seek or accept help she needs) and tires of it in a sort of existential way, and (so) longs to submit, to relinquish control. Does this story fit you? I don't know. If the shoe fits, then guess what? It doesn't make you special. There are just scads of other men and women who can identify in an unguarded moment (maybe you haven't one of these in years, I dunno) with this story. But this doesn't mean that *you* aren't special. You are, and just as deserving as the next person of some fulfillment. So I'm curious about your "should"s. What makes something a should and what makes something a shouldn't? Once you've found and examined that framework which is defining so much of your worldview and self-image then you can evaluate it, accept it, tweak it, or replace large parts of it. But very often--despite societal prejudices to the contrary--questions you feel and then mentally organize into rational inquiries aren't susceptible of rational answers. I'm not advocating irrationality. The alternative way to address some kinds of questions is by active, rather than intellectual, engagement. Sometime you have to live your way to the answer, or rather, the resolution. The resolution sometimes leaves the question quite intact, by the way, but frees you to accept the presence of the unanswered question as a signpost or milestone but move past it all the same.. Sometimes: "You just can't think there from here" as it were. Good luck.
|
|
|
|