|
Prinsexx -> RE: Has "submissive become a misnomer? (5/23/2008 4:41:52 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: UncleNasty
I think of it less as noun and more as a verb. "She acts in submissive ways" as ooposed to "She is a submissive." One lives and breathes and for me the other is more like a lifeless unchanging object. I like some life in my partners, LOL, as necromancy is not a kink I embrace.
Uncle Nasty
This prompted me to write this about the nature of 'submissive'.
~a submssive~....en-soi....in itself.....like a thing. Like we would say of a stone; gray, round, granite, pebble, rock and so forth. A submissive is therefore a person who is submissive, is seen to kneel, to beg, to serve, to be an object upon which a dominant exerts control, an object for the passive receipt of pain and so on. A submissive is an object which is seen as similar to, unlike, or contracdictory to other objectifications within what is known as the lifestyle. Differentated from what is not submissive, differentiated from what is dominant for example.
And; pour-soi....for itself, essence, essentially one who has a sense of submitting in the presence of another who is felt to be dominat, one who has the sense of deferment, of deference and of wanting to serve another, to become the object of servitude, to become one who is the object of its owner's pleasure. This is a function of which the submissive themselves are aware and for which they therefore give their consent.
I would therefore say that I have an understanding of what a submissive IS and an empathy towards what a submissive DOES.
Yes I agree: there could be a sense of cultural, historical and protocols of which I am able to differentiate my concept of submissive from another concept of submissive; in the same way that I might distinguish let's say coal from limeastone if we were to go back to the stone analogy.
But there is no sense which I could make about my own essential feeling or understanding of my submission from that to which any other self-referring submissive might make. We each have our own subjective (very subjective) interpretation of what we do as submissive acts. And that's just it isn't it: finding the one/or other whose subjective essence fits....the dominant essence that completes or makes holistic sense of one's own acts of submission. But of course it is possible to be essentailly submissive without any refeence to domination.....by simply feeling oneself, and understanding oneself to be submissive.
In that sense there is no sense of dilution or cultural compromise in who I am. There is negotiation and consensus in what I am though but (and this is where the analogy of the stone has to end) what I am, as an object defined by another, must stem from, must be congruous with what I feel myself essentially to be.
I get very defensive when I am told I am a dilution (etc) of what I feel myself to be both within and without relationships of intimacy and eroticism.
Prin xx
|
|
|
|
