MemphisDsCouple
Posts: 146
Joined: 11/1/2004
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ElektraUkM
What I was questioning was the dismissive way (some) (male) subs were being talked about ~ as if they would cease to exist without extreme (and difficult to provide) control or 'management'. I suppose the way people were being talked about in a derogatory sense was getting to me.
I don't know if it was the disparaging of male submissives or the arrogance of a simultaneous display of a lack of dominance skills that flipped my switch. But over-night while the above was posted I was composing:
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
quote:
quote:
I like my submissive partners to able bodied humans who essentially could function without my control but who thoroughly get off on me superimposing my control.
I don't feel I've got the ability to superimpose my control over anyone, though it is a kick when someone accepts it. That is probably a minor difference in outlook toward a statement I otherwise agree with.
Ok Mr. Smarty pants, you said it way better then me. I'm not superimposing... more like overlaying it and of course they gotta want it ;)
But often, even usually - not always but usually- it is a literal, physical fact that the male in a relationship has the wherewithal (the "ability") to impose a very significant degree of physical control over the female in the relationship.
This is why we have, in the recent past, had all the posts about Abuse. (Hoping I don't stir that up again by pointing this out.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: FTopinMichigan
I will add that I tend to loathe the type of submissive men I've been meeting lately. Not wanting to generalize (but, I will  )...but the majority of male subs I've met, are far too quiet and introverted for me.
What you describe is typically the way men submit. It is natural. It is instinctive. It is the way men submit. Perhaps men are born with a strong streak of dominance in virtually all of them - I don't know. But I think it is the internal throttling of this dominance that you have observed and are describing. Watch men.
In sports, the loser (who has suffered the imposition of the victor's will) is quiet. He is withdrawn. He looks down as he walks off the field.
In business meetings, when someone from the home office lays down the law the men will become reserved, quiet, "introverted" (as you point out). Internally, they stifle any urges to object or rebel.
In movies, watch the way actors handle these situations. It is an easy for them. It comes naturally.
In life, not in bdsm "play", when one man is imposing his will on another he will generally continue to increase whatever pressure he is applying until the other man either begs for relief or, alternately, becomes still and quiet. This applies to sports, a fight, an argument - whatever. As long as the second man shows defiance or independence in any way (for example by speaking up) the first man will instinctively feel compelled to continue to exert more pressure.
What you describe is the way men submit.
Additionally:
It works in nature in general. Watch "Gorillas In the Mist". Or, read the book. Read the advice for dealing with aggressive dogs. Basically, it says be still. Be quiet. Do not make eye contact. This sends a message of submission in nature.
This is enacting submission.
quote:
ORIGINAL: FTopinMichigan
When I am quite clear about enjoying an extrovert, with a strong personality
Being clear about what one enjoys is not at all the same thing as teaching/training/conditioning a desired response or mode of conduct in a submissive. Perhaps a review of the dominant's mastering skills is in order. Perhaps a focus on learning and improving better mastering techniques is in order.
A couple of concrete suggestions: If a dominant wants an imposing physical presence, take the guy to a pt. If the dominant wants a conversationalist, take the guy to a "How to win friends" seminar, or to Toastmasters, or teach him yourself, and so on. If you want a more extroverted personality, take him to a shrink for personality adjustment. And so on.
Note that I did not say "send him" to these places and experts! I said "take him". Mastery is a hands-on activity. Mastery is for people like:
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
a self-started and a highly motivated proactive person in all areas of life.
If I didn't know better from reading the thread, I would think we were talking about what makes a good dominant.
And:
I do not think it is either our function as dominants, or conceptually practical to expect to leaf through a bunch of submissives' resume's and be able to pull one out that is a virtually perfect fit for the position we might want to fill. While the "gather a bunch of resume's and pick one" philosophy is works fine for business:
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
I value a self-started and a highly motivated proactive person in all areas of life. As an employer, those are the only types of people I’ve ever hired.
It is not the same thing to apply that concept to personal relationships.
I do not choose a mate/submissive/slave the same way I choose an employee. Not even close. I have vastly different goals and expectations in each instance.
Ask anyone if they want a non self-starter. Ask anyone if they want to be around someone who has no personal motivation. I don't think you'll get very many takers, from either dominants or submissives (or switches for that matter). But generalizations like that, while they are useful in a business context and have some specific meanings in the business environment, may not help us much in understanding the dynamics of a d/s relationship and fitting a submissive person into our life.
I think it is an exceedingly rare circumstance when the dominant feels no need and/or desire to mold the submissive. Assuming, of course, the dominant understands the dynamics of a lifestyle d/s relationship, has the ability to perform the dominant function in a lifestyle d/s relationship and has mastered the requisite skills in dominance to be able to perform as a dominant within the d/s relationship.
quote:
ORIGINAL: FTopinMichigan
I see men that stay quiet and do the "wait-until-spoken-to" character.
I find this entirely appropriate behavior for the role they have chosen. Moreover, I find this entirely appropriate and understandably communicative behavior for the role they have chosen.
If the dominant wants something different, the dominant should teach something different. (Simply stating a preference is *not* teaching.)
If you get a willing, pliable, dedicated, motivated person in your hands and you can't handle the management, training and molding of that person - Hey! The fault is not in the submissive!
quote:
ORIGINAL: FTopinMichigan
When I've talked with this type of man, to explain my lack of interest in them, they respond defensively with, "that's what women want." Really?  Did anyone tell the women?
I think what they may be trying to say is, "that's what I *think* women want". Or, "that's what a man would want from a man". "So, it's natural for me to act this way." "I am being perfect." "I am giving my power." "This is the way submission is enacted in nature." "So, why is there confusion over this?" "How could you not like this?"
quote:
ORIGINAL: FTopinMichigan
When I've talked with this type of man, to explain my lack of interest in them, they respond defensively with, "that's what women want." Really? Did anyone tell the women?
It occurs to me that one of the reasons men (or possibly anyone, but we're talking about men) submit to women -
*Is To Be Told What The Woman Wants!* (Trying not to write "Duh!" behind that sentence.)
I think it may often be the case that they are just plain tired of trying to figure it out. They just want to be told. No more performance pressures. Simplify life. Simplify the relationship. Just tell the poor guy exactly what to do. And then watch him do it! He will be so proud! I mean...... I do get this. You don't?
Of course, I can't speak from experience and I can't say if this is right or not. And, even if it applies to a lot of men, there are going to be exceptions to the rule. But as a man, it makes sense to me.
So basically, it seems to me that some writers are complaining about the very thing that may most motivate the man to serve a woman. I gotta say, I feel sorry for the guys you talk to. Instead of simplifying their lives they are finding just one more wicked twist and confusion to deal with.
From "24/7 power dynamic - how do you define it?":
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
Now when I look at my relationships, I do not want the same kind of authority that my boss has or my parents had over me. I want a partnership.
If a person has that personal relationship value structure, that person may find it difficult to understand others who have a different set of values and a different understanding of the inner workings of a d/s relationship. Partnerships are not the structure in which we envision people understanding and practicing what the OP has chosen to term "micro-management".
From: "24/7 power dynamic - how do you define it?":
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
Now on a more sexual level, within the realms of play, I love being in control. That is an integral part of my sexuality. Whether it’s active control such as tying him up and torturing him or (relatively) passive control such as demanding that he please me, even if that means turning him into a service top, I will get what I want in bed. And for the great majority of my sexual partners, this has been just quite fine by them!
As long as someone considers d/s to be no more than a "play" time activity, it may be difficult (impossible?) for that person to understand the satisfaction, connection and fulfillment created within a couple that practices the all-encompassing intimacy of control that extends even into the smallest, most routine and seemingly insignificant recesses of the relationship and activities of that couple.
Often in life people denigrate what they do not understand..... shrug....
Often in life people denigrate what they are unable to achieve..... shrug....
Look at the thread title chosen: "The powerful and independent".
And then look at what is written:
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
I like someone who, once they have gotten to know me, knows what I require and desire and does their best to see that my requirements and desires are met.
That is not "independent".
Just so we're on the same page here, I cite Webster's Online where I find: Independent: 1 : not dependent: as a (1) : not subject to control by others
And: (2) : not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct
( http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=independent )
quote:
ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2
So we'll get a lot of "I like my subs to be feisty and thinking and not a doormat" posts.
Exactly. So if we don't go that trite route, we're left with the obvious contradictions I am describing.
In reading this thread, it seems to me that what some of the posters want is a dominant man who will act submissively. Well, if he is a dominant man - why wouldn't he act dominantly? I confess I haven't figured this part out yet.
But even if he *did*. Even if the dominant man agreed to act submissively - how confusing is that? I dunno. It's beyond me at the moment.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
Oh and side note, don’t apologise for disagreeing with me please ;-) <weg>
My pleasure.
Postscript:
You are welcome to print or save this post for your own use. Please do not copy it to any public or semi-public forum (including email groups/lists) without my express permission. Thanks. All rights reserved. (I write this postscript because after-the-fact someone wrote to me to inform me that they had copied a prior post I wrote to another list. So, I thought I'd better clarify what my preference/policy is regarding use of what I write.)
B. (the male half of MemphisDsCouple)
|
RE: The powerful and independent submissive - now there... - 
Profile
Just wondering... because I evidently have no experience of this... 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread