RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms?

RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (Full Version)

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

Message

ElanSubdued -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 10:27:08 AM)
Sea, quote: Do you think a prisoner is submissive to a prison guard? I assume yes. Do you think a prisoner wishes to please a prison guard as one might by bringing breakfast in bed? I assume no. Well unless the prisoner sees it as an opportunity to spit in the guard's food ;-) If my assumptions are incorrect, please elaborate. If my assumptions are correct, how do you explain a submissive role that does not include pleasing? Why do you think pleasing is essential to submission? I realize you were speaking to mettadas, but this aspect of your post caused me to ponder. Underlying your question, in my opinion, is the age old question "how real is what we do"? In other words, when a submissive or slave submits to a partner in a consensual, BDSM context, in the literal sense of slavery, how real is this? I tend to think not very real because those in consensual acquiescence can walk away at any time. Here things get much more complex because it is true that depending on one's mental state and sense of self esteem, they may not be able to "just walk away". Now I've opened yet another can of worms because I question whether a person in such a state can actually consent and how healthy such a scenario is for the participants. I'll dig a bit further by using a model of human needs such as Maslow's Hierarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_heirarchy_of_needs Just where the kinky play and BDSM dynamics we kinksters enjoy come into things is a bit murky. Still, I'd venture to say it's closer to self actualization than to a purely psychological need. There are many learned psychologists who don't see human needs as a hierarchy at all, but I think most of us laypeople would agree that food, shelter, and basic safety come long before any notion of BDSM. So I ask the question again "how real is what we do"? My answer is: as real as the kinksters in question consent to feasibly and desirably make it. The key ideas are consent, feasibility, and desirability, and this is why BDSM folk talk of things like safe words, SSC, RACK, communication, etc. So now I come to the crux of your comment. Do I think a prisoner wishes to please a prison guard as one might by bringing breakfast in bed to their domina? Absolutely not, but I also think we're talking about a different kind of submission here. This is submission born from a need for self defense. Is this the same kind of submission we kinksters think of? I don't think so. It's not consensual. It's very literal. There are few (if any) aspects of mutual negotiation of feasibility and desirability. But, I'll most certainly agree that there is a submissive and a dominant party. To appease those who are offended at my subtext that what we kinksters do is a carefully crafted illusion, I'll say the following. I've gone back and forth on the idea that consensual BDSM is a reality in the literal sense. It certainly feels very real to the partners who are participating, but even then I've seen the most committed lifestylers drop roles to deal with needs that are lower level and much more fundamental in the hierarchy described by Maslow. Perhaps it's equally accurate to say that we kinky folk are complex, loving people who frequently relate (by choice) in an organic way without whips, chains, and overt protocols. None the less, I'll agree that for many kinksters the BDSM dynamics we share in our personal relationships are a natural way of interacting. Getting back to the question once again, I think what your thought suggests, Sea, is that there are different kinds of submission. In my opinion, the submission born of self defense isn't the same as consensual submission in BDSM and the needs being addressed are totally different. Elan.

misterbananafish -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 10:51:18 AM)
to expand on the differentiation of submission to a prison guard or to a dom/domina... i think both willing and forced submission can be a part of play, i really hope i'm not the only one on these forums that would enjoy being overpowered and forced to submit... and in that type of role play, i would certainly fight and attempt escape, etc... but it is absolutely different from willing submission to your mistress/master, where your goal is to please them. perhaps the forced submission thing goes back a few posts about the difference of masochistic submission... personally, i'd like it both ways, willing most of the time, but some forced play...

Reigna -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 11:30:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued ... I question whether a person in such a state can actually consent and how healthy such a scenario is for the participants. And a good question it is, too. I'd say the answer is, "It depends on the participants." How well do they function otherwise? How aware are they of the underlying dynamics of what they're doing? What tools do they have to cope with said dynamics? Does the sub, for example, have the internal resources to bounce back from being mindfucked into believing he's a foot stool? Does the dominant understand that she does not in fact possess the power to turn someone into furniture? Sometimes you wonder.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 1:05:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued Just where the kinky play and BDSM dynamics we kinksters enjoy come into things is a bit murky. Still, I'd venture to say it's closer to self actualization than to a purely psychological need. [clipped] Elan. Actually, it's interesting to see this come out. One thing that I look for in a servant is that evidence that he or she has reached the level of self-actualization, and has determined that this is truly something that moves them beyond need/hunger... something that moves them towards becoming -more- the person that they are. For myself, as well, I find that my dominion over another/others comes out of my own self-actualization. Although it might not work this way for everyone, it has certainly allowed for greater success in our poly M/s-D/s household than almost any other aspect. The times we've given in and taken on people who were tied to needs closer to the base of Maslow's hierarchy, or during times when the household has gone through events that moved us, as a group, to have to focus on those hierarchical needs lower on Maslow's structure, we've had a much greater measure of conflict and stress in the household than during the times when we were all able to develop those self-actualized parts of ourselves. As I said earlier, my opinion is that the only way to judge "true" is to learn a person well enough to find out that they've attained a level of self-actualization that recognizes their service as a way of becoming more deeply and intensely who they are. Firestorm

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 5:26:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mettadas There's a difference in our thinking right there. I do see masochism as a desire for emotional or physical suffering. I don't see a desire to let go of ego as masochistic at all. A meditation practice may have this as a goal, for example, but I don't think the meditator is necessarily a masochist. Thanks for the response and the intelligent discussion. My intent, of course, is to share my rationale behind my thoughts, and not to impose them upon you. I am enjoying this conversation as intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful debate. I agree with your point that shedding the ego has spiritual value and is seen in religious and spiritual belief systems. However, what I am pondering is different than shedding the ego. What I am suggesting is better described as having the ego lessened, subdued, or, depending on degree, flattened. One who sheds the ego might live a simple lifestyle. He might dress in simple clothes and refrain from epicureanism. He might not seek to be popular, be seen as successful, or have a high social status. Shedding the ego is not necessarily directed before an individual or groups of inviduals but rather refers to a general life philosophy and general humility. Having the ego lessened is usually not associated with a life philosophy and involves not a general humility but humility before an individual or a group of individuals. Having the ego lessened is not about living simply, but being made to live as if of lesser status. Shedding the ego does not require a desire to be ordered what to do (one who sheds the ego might look within self for guidance and enlightenment), whereas a desire to have the ego lessened does. That said, I think there is an area of overlap between having the ego lessened and shedding the ego and, thus, I think submission has components that have spiritual value (devotion is another component of submission that has spiritual value). Why would someone want their ego lessened? Why would someone wish to be objectified and used as a footstool? Why would someone want to be ordered what to do? Why would someone wish to be and take delight in being spat on and find gratification in the lesser, submissive status they feel? In my opinion, these specific wants and the general want to have one's ego lessened are masochistic wants. A masochist does not enjoy physical pain that is outside consensual BDSM, but he does within BDSM. A masochist does not enjoy having his ego lessened outside consensual BDSM but he does within BDSM. Because having the ego lessened within BDSM creates arousal instead of misery does not mean it is not masochistic. quote: That subordination does not cause me any emotional pain. In fact it can be quite comforting, or even blissful. I agree and feel similarly. I think where our views diverge is that I think masochism can include but does not presuppose suffering or discomfort. I see there to be two types of masochism: a masochism that enjoys physical or emotional discomfort (discomfort-based masochism) and masochism that enjoys lessening of the ego or a lesser status (status-based masochism). While some definitions of masochism might focus on discomfort, I think its scope should include a wish for a lesser status. If masochism refers to behavior and wants of Leopold Von Sacher Masoch expressed through characters in his writings, Severin in Venus in Furs was presented to the outside world as his wife's servant during a trip, so much so that he rode in the servant section of the train. He acted as her servant even when there was no one else around. He found gratification in a lesser status. quote: Now here is where it perhaps gets a bit more complicated: I do enjoy humiliation play, which quite clearly is emotional suffering. But I like the suffering because it brings about feelings of submission, not the submission because it brings suffering. I feel similarly. I distinguish between two types of humiliation: D/s humiliation and SM humiliation. D/s humiliation involves an act that is otherwise humiliating but does not create emotional discomfort (for example, having to bow to kiss feet) and is willingly done to express the dominant and submissive status. SM humiliation creates emotional discomfort (for example, public humiliation is usually SM humiliation because it creates emotional discomfort). What you describe seems to me to be D/s humiliation. Why does one enjoy D/s humiliation? You answer that question effectively--it is enjoyed for the submissive feelings it creates. But let's go one level deeper and ask why does one enjoy the feelings of submission such acts create? My theory is that this gratification comes from status-based masochism. In summary, there is a component of submission (a want to feel a lesser status before another, having another lessen one's ego or status) which I consider to come from status-based masochism. I wish to emphasize that status-based masochism is only one of different reasons why one might enjoy submission. I will elaborate on the point about the prisoner in a subsequent post. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 5:40:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reigna quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea How would you characterize a desire to be subservient and subordinate, to be given orders and have to comply, to be powerless before the will of another, and to otherwise be in a state that would lessen the ego by vanilla standards? You didn't ask me, but I'd characterize the desire you posit as a cultural expectation. Also, I'd note that some definitions of submission take it a step further and demand that the submissive get nothing--zero, zip, nada, nor the teensiest tingle up the leg--from the exchange. It's yet another cultural expectation, and a chimeric one, at that. I would characterize being subservient or subordinate out of a sense of duty (that one is supposed to behave as such) as a cultural expectation. I would characterize a desrie to be subservient and subordinate becuase one finds gratification in having this lesser status as a masochistic want. I agree that some definitions of submission assume that for it to be submission, a submissive should have no reward. In my opinion, there has to be some form of reward (even if it is masochistic perving for being given no reward) or else the arrangement will likely fall before the forces of reality. quote: You are aware, of course, that some (not me) will advise you that religion lessens the ego, therefore submission is religious in nature. I agree that submission has or has potential to have spiritual value. However, I do not think it requires it. Thus, I think I am more apt to say that religion preaches submission than to say that submission is religious. Thank you for the comment about my posts, and for the discussion :) Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 5:56:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued I realize you were speaking to mettadas, but this aspect of your post caused me to ponder. Elan, Anyone is welcome to join the conversation. I particularly welcome your comments. Thanks for posting about Maslow's theory and adding it to my knowledge. quote: Do I think a prisoner wishes to please a prison guard as one might by bringing breakfast in bed to their domina? Absolutely not, but I also think we're talking about a different kind of submission here. This is submission born from a need for self defense. Is this the same kind of submission we kinksters think of? I don't think so. It's not consensual. It's very literal. There are few (if any) aspects of mutual negotiation of feasibility and desirability. But, I'll most certainly agree that there is a submissive and a dominant party. If a submissive is watching a film that has a prisoner under the power of a guard, it is conceivable that this submissive will find this scene arousing and might wish to be in the shoes of this prisoner. Even though the prisoner in the film might be in a situation of non-consensual submission, the thought of being under the power of another in that manner might be arousing to the submissive. The wants or feelings that this submissive might be having while watching this scene do not come from a place to please, but from a place to have this lesser status and be under the power of another. I consider the want to engage in this type of submission to come from masochism. Note that this submissive is enjoying thoughts about a role that is submissive. Pleasing is not relevant in this scenario yet it is a scenario of submission. And, thus, the point I wish to convey is that pleasing is not essential to submission. It is one form of submission. In my opinion, a position that in order to be submissive one must like to please comes more from cultural expectation or personal philosophy about the components of submission one enjoys, and not from the mechanics or anatomy of submission. Cheers, Sea

pixelslave -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/11/2008 11:10:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea I agree not all submissives are masochists. But then why should all submissives be service submissives or wish to please? That is the point I am pondering in this thread. Thank you for clarifying where you're coming from Sea. That's certainly seems to me to be a very valid question as there are many who are obviously submissive in various forms, but clearly do not wish to be of service to dominants, yet are not what many would refer to as "bottoms". Exploring that particular realm of submission is indeed interesting as it's not often spoken of in a positive sense; but still may be an important element of our submissiveness that many of us have to a greater extent than we may be aware of. [8\|] quote: When I say that drives outside of submission make the matter more complex yet I mean that the sum behavior of a submissive (in my case, at least) might be the collective expression of his masochism, affection and devotion, romance, spirituality, and ego. ~nods. That makes sense to me and would be part of that which makes each of us unique. quote: Masochism has me enjoy or wish for that that is considered to cause physical or emotional discomfort by vanilla standards. Affection and devotion drive me to please. Romance aligns with affection and devotion and has me seek a relationship that balances submission, masochism, and companionship--it creates a want in me to have a companion and to go through experiences of life as companions do. I consider devotion and the desire to please to have spiritual value--I sometimes feel a meditative calm when serving. I think there is a gratification most humans find upon devoting self to something (a cause, person, a religion), which I consider spiritual in nature. And ego is what makes me want to be respected and loved. Sometimes ego conflicts with drives that come from masochism and submission. A given act might span multiple drives. I can relate to what you speak of while serving, although I've never thought of it as being something that's spiritual. I'll have to give that some thought. I will say that I've gone into sub-space on more than one occassion while doing things like focusing on giving a Mistress a foot rub. [:D] quote: I do not seek a subservient or subordinate status to escape the burden of responsibility but simply because it arouses me. I consider this response to be counter-intuitive to what one might expect of an ego and consider it to come from a masochistic place. That is, I enjoy that that would lessen the ego for a vanilla person and consider this response to be masochistic. Hmmm... unless you desire this in a 24/7 context, might one consider this a form of role-play? I may be veering off track here as you did state "that would lessen the ego for a vanilla person", and since you're clearly not vanilla, you may be saying it wouldn't lessen your ego. Is that the case? If not, if viewed in the context of one's spirituality, serving is serving, and to me one's status is irrelevent. It appears to me as though determination that one's role is of a subordinate status is something that's largely culture driven and is also a matter of one's self-esteem. In some cultures, the same role would be given a higher status than in others. Again, here's where I may be veering even further off target if the above isn't the case. There's also the fact that, from my view at least, that not everyone can be King of Queen. A society functions because there are people to fill all the positions that are needed for the various jobs to be done. In that context, no role is of greater or lesser importance than another. If there is no one there to do an essential job, the greatest of ideas can not be brought to fruition. When viewed from a socialist context, without workers, Henry Ford's cars would never have been built. In that context, Henry was no more valuable than the average worker, even though the workers were viewed as having a lower status, as all were needed for the factories to produce his cars. As an aside, I'm suddenly reminded of the lyrics to a Jimmy Buffett song called "It's my Job". [:D] quote: The point I wish to convey here is that submission and masochism are not mutually exclusive and that some desires for submission are masochistic in nature. They could be. OTOH, submission could also come from a desire to let go of one's ego. If one doesn't feel the need to be "in control" of things in general or enjoys the feeling of freedom they get when they turn control of their ego over to another, I wouldn't call that masochistic, nor would I say that's necessarily rooted in having a need or desire to serve. [&:] quote: To tie this point to the discussion we have been having, one can imagine a submissive who wishes to be submissive not for the desire to please but for reasons that I consider to be masochistic. How would you characterize a desire to be subservient and subordinate, to be given orders and have to comply, to be powerless before the will of another, and to otherwise be in a state that would lessen the ego by vanilla standards? That's difficult for me to say without knowing more about their motivation and whether they wish the arrangement to be of a permanent nature. As you're very familiar with NVC (Non-Violent Communication), that person could simply be coming from a place of not having a need to control others, and open to the guidance and direction from another they view as more capable than they are of making decisions in their best interest. However, as you describe *your* motivation being in masochistic terms, you see that as allowing or desiring yourself to be put in a position where you're in a lower station from a typical vanilla viewpoint. As noted above, to me, that's an external judgement that you're making of yourself in doing so. You're applying vanilla standards or some other societal standards to yourself when you go there. You might contrast this with the case of others who view a Domme or Mistress as a Goddess that's worthy of their worship. They also generally view themselves as being of a lower status relative to their Dominant, but they seem to do so not necessarily by lowering their own status, but instead by elevating the status of the Dominant. I find the contrast with what you speak of to be quite distinct and significant. quote: quote: Are we speaking of a physical or emotional masochist? I can see one acting out of a need to fulfill something of an addiction to pain and the other acting out of more of a learned system of dysfunctional behavior as I wouldn't see an emotional masochist as likely to be capable of having a healthy relationship or posessing the positive self-esteem that a dominant would want to have for a partner. Typically, a masochist is defined as someone who receives emotional or physical discomfort. I am broadening the definition of masochist to include one who wishes for a situation that ordinarily lessens the ego. I consider this masochism to fall under emotional masochism, or, at least, be a mental form of masochism. Although perhaps emotionally uncomfortable at times, what you describe seems to be more of a mental form of masochism to me. quote: There is a woman from Arizona who used to post on b.com who makes me feel like a newcomer to BDSM when she speaks of emotional SM. She and her dom have a healthy relationship that has lasted for longer than I have been in BDSM. And she seems to have a healthy esteem. I don't see emotional masochism to exclude positive self-esteem or a healthy relationship. I think the interest in itself does not define whether it is healthy or not but rather what all is behind the interest. Thanks for engaging me in discussion. Cheers, Sea You're welcome Sea. I'd strongly agree that what's behind the motivation would be of the utmost importance in determining whether or not emotional and/or mental masochistic play was healthy or not for the submissive. I find this discussion very interesting and feel the need to reflect on it in terms of my own submission. I enjoy going to places with a Dominant I trust that might be similar to what you suggest. I've never viewed it as emotional masochism, but more as freeing myself of inhibitions that our society places on men and women. Being with a woman who loves and appreciates me for the submissive male that I am, allows me the freedom to do that; feeling safe in the knowledge I'll not be judged or diminished by it in her eyes afterward. [;)] What anyone else thinks really matters not... - pixel

chiaThePet -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/12/2008 12:22:52 AM)
This is to no one in particular as I read through this very interesting thread. I however feel that perhaps I have experienced an epiphany of sorts here. You see, I have come to the sudden realization that I may be afflicted with ADD. Because if anyone forced me to read through these pages again, I would opt for gouging out my eyes, cutting off my tongue, and peeling the skin from my torso. It truly is amazing what one can learn about themselves here at the collarme forums. chia* (the pet)

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/12/2008 10:48:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pixelslave I can relate to what you speak of while serving, although I've never thought of it as being something that's spiritual. It is a thought I have stumbled upon as I processed my experiences--that I would sometimes feel a calm, peaceful feeling while serving. It was a gratification outside of sexual arousal. It's more likely to occur in service that connects with the devotion and pleasing component. And my experiences and classes about massage led me to the thought about the calming energy exchange (the therapist can also becomes relaxed) that can occur during massage. I consider this type of an energy exchange to be in the realm of spirituality. I consider whatever reward one might find in service and devotion to be in the realm of spirituality. It is for this reason I believe that amongst the different types of gratification possible for a service submissive, one is of spiritual form. I think your point about reaching subspace is also relevant. quote: Hmmm... unless you desire this in a 24/7 context, might one consider this a form of role-play? I use the term lower status to describe an imbalance in authority, rank, power, or privileges (for example, a superior officer and subordinate officer, or a historical master-servant dynamic. I see a difference in rank, authority, or privileges to reflect a difference in power). I do not suggest that the person who assumes a lower status is of lesser social worth--in fact, I dispute that notion (that an interest in submission makes one a lesser person) when I see it. In my opinion, this difference in status is willingly assumed as a ritual or expression of the respective roles. While the term status may not be commonly used in BDSM, I use it to describe expression or activity that is common in BDSM (difference in privileges for use of furniture, one person must seek permission to use a bathroom whereas the other does not, one person enjoys the orgasm and the other cannot have it, use of honorifics). You are correct that I do not seek a relationship with the type of lower status in a classic master-servant relationship. The reason is that while the idea appeals to the masochist in me, it does not align well with my concept of romance and companionship. Yes, it can be achieved via roleplay, or via a non-exclusive or non-longterm relationship that is based on only this dynamic. A broader, or a long-term relationship would lean towards that that satisfies all the components. For instance, I think my penchant for service is there because it aligns or has potential to align with multiple components: status-based masochism, affection and devotion, romance and companionship, spirituality, and ego (because I do well at it). And there might be acts that feed only one component or some of the components as part of a greater balance that satisfies all components. quote: I may be veering off track here as you did state "that would lessen the ego for a vanilla person", and since you're clearly not vanilla, you may be saying it wouldn't lessen your ego. Is that the case? If a vanilla person had to kneel to convey submission, it would likely lessen his ego. I might instead enjoy the same act without any loss of ego. In fact, it may even be said to be ego enhancing (as holding hands might be for a vanilla man because the act represents a positive interaction in his social relationship). quote: If not, if viewed in the context of one's spirituality, serving is serving, and to me one's status is irrelevent. Service can be for spirituality. Service can be a gesture of regard and fondness. Or service can reflect different power statuses. How I respond depends on whatever dynamic is created by the persons involved. quote: It appears to me as though determination that one's role is of a subordinate status is something that's largely culture driven and is also a matter of one's self-esteem. In some cultures, the same role would be given a higher status than in others. My interest in submissive activity is not driven by esteem but because it brings me psychosexual gratification. I do not seek submission because I think I am of lesser worth, neither do I wish to be of lesser worth in a general sense. I wonder if my use of the term masochism is throwing you off in the direction of self deprication. I like what I like because it reflects an imbalance in power or status. I like to be under the power of another because it brings me pyschosexual gratification. Why do I get psychosexual gratification from being under the power of another? I consider this response--to get psychosexual gratification from bring under the power of another--to be a masochistic response. quote: They could be. OTOH, submission could also come from a desire to let go of one's ego. If one doesn't feel the need to be "in control" of things in general or enjoys the feeling of freedom they get when they turn control of their ego over to another, I wouldn't call that masochistic, nor would I say that's necessarily rooted in having a need or desire to serve. [&:] Submission can come from different places, of which masochism is one. quote: that person could simply be coming from a place of not having a need to control others, and open to the guidance and direction from another they view as more capable than they are of making decisions in their best interest. It is one thing to not want to control others and another to want to be controlled by another. Sure, for some people the release of responsibility may be one reward in the mix of things that drive them to be under the power of another. However, there are many subs who are just fine with the responsibility of making decisions. What do you think drives these subs to want to be under the power of another? quote: You might contrast this with the case of others who view a Domme or Mistress as a Goddess that's worthy of their worship. They also generally view themselves as being of a lower status relative to their Dominant, but they seem to do so not necessarily by lowering their own status, but instead by elevating the status of the Dominant. I find the contrast with what you speak of to be quite distinct and significant. It seems you think it is significant that I have referred to lower status of the submissive and not a higher status of the dominant, with which I disagree. I think you are reading into something that is not there. If you think there is a sense of self loathing or an esteem issue that drives my interests, you are incorrect. My style of service leans towards creating a sense of regality. I use the term status to represent an assumed imbalance of power and rank. The dominant assumes the higher status of power and rank and the submissive assumes the lower status of power and rank. When I am directing the focus on the submissive, I use the term lower status. When I speak of the statuses, I do indeed refer to them relative to each other, and not to the general public. quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea Typically, a masochist is defined as someone who receives emotional or physical discomfort. I am broadening the definition of masochist to include one who wishes for a situation that ordinarily lessens the ego. I consider this masochism to fall under emotional masochism, or, at least, be a mental form of masochism. I add these words to my prior comment: I am broadening the definition of masochist to include one who wishes for a situation that ordinarily lessens the ego, but experiences gratification with no ego loss or emotional discomfort. This is one scenario amongst many that are possible. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/12/2008 11:23:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chiaThePet I think introspection and understanding one's psychology is constructive and of practical benefit.. And I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume your post is more for sake of humor than to slam the discussion. Cheers, Sea

mettadas -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/12/2008 12:22:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea Having the ego lessened is usually not associated with a life philosophy and involves not a general humility but humility before an individual or a group of individuals. Having the ego lessened is not about living simply, but being made to live as if of lesser status. Shedding the ego does not require a desire to be ordered what to do (one who sheds the ego might look within self for guidance and enlightenment), whereas a desire to have the ego lessened does. There may be some confusion of methods and results there. I think that different methods used with different motivations can still achieve the same results. For me, the ego-reduced state I achieve during submission (when it goes really well) is very much the same as I have experienced through religious ritual or through meditation. In both cases it can last for days afterwards. I have long thought of submission as a spiritual path for me (though clearly not for everyone.) quote: Why would someone want their ego lessened? Why would someone wish to be objectified and used as a footstool? Why would someone want to be ordered what to do? Why would someone wish to be and take delight in being spat on and find gratification in the lesser, submissive status they feel? In my opinion, these specific wants and the general want to have one's ego lessened are masochistic wants. I need to think about that. (Thanks for that!)

chiaThePet -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/12/2008 2:54:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: ORIGINAL: chiaThePet I think introspection and understanding one's psychology is constructive and of practical benefit.. And I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume your post is more for sake of humor than to slam the discussion. Cheers, Sea In the interum of this thread, it became quite pellucid unto myself that deep within, an upheaval likened to a volcanic eruption began to manifest itself in both a physcial and mental bombardment. The views I expressed, and options I forwarded were quite serious considerations, quite serious. Had I wished to slam the discussion, I would have taken the liberty to do so. This was not my intent nor desire. My response was in addition to the discussion, as presented, and I wish to change nothing of it. Here, one may tend to postulate, and rightly so, that my offering was mere jest. I am known as I am known, one whom finds seriousness, simply a bit serious. I might believe, though not thoroughly convinced, that the resolute disection and cadence of the subject matter infuriated any direct desire within me to possess a complex, literal and equipoise definition or definitions aligned with the op's queries and the subsequent discussion and subject matter which followed. Simply said, the need here for exactness most often drives me crazy. Thus, perhaps a preponderance exists within me akin to, or perhaps of, ADD, Attention Deficite Disorder. (I lack immediate indepth knowledge, but shall research said disorder, that I might satisfy my query) I feel the need even now to go bang my head against a solid mass. Where oh where is the laughter? chia* (the pet)

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/12/2008 3:32:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chiaThePet Let's cut to the chase. What was the intent behind your post? It seems you are mocking the discussion and those who participated in it. Is that your intent? Cheers, Sea

chiaThePet -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/12/2008 3:42:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: ORIGINAL: chiaThePet Let's cut to the chase. What was the intent behind your post? It seems you are mocking the discussion and those who participated in it. Is that your intent? Cheers, Sea What didn't you understand Sea? Post 1 or Post 2? Or is that wonderful ability some possess here to discount the words of others so prevalent that it blinds the blind. Are you attempting to make light of a possible disability here Sea? chia* (the pet)

undergroundsea -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/12/2008 4:34:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chiaThePet What didn't you understand Sea? Post 1 or Post 2? I don't object to humor. I don't object to going off course in a discussion. How I feel about a post depends more on what I perceive to be the spirit behind the post. What I am unsure about is the spirit behind each post you made here. You are known to make jokes. You have also made plenty of posts recently that have a less than benign intent, which, frankly, is how your posts in this thread feel to me. I wanted to give you the benefit of doubt and allow that perhaps you were intending humor in good spirit and it just came across differently. If you had poked fun in good spirit and then saw that it might be coming across differently, I expect you would have clarified that you did not intend anything bad. If the conversation is not of interest to you, fair enough. Why come and make a post that seems to mock the conversation and its participants? Why not just go to another thread? You make a reference to ADD, which, regardless of whether that reference has merit or not, is irrelevant here--I am talking about courtesy and being nice which has nothing to do with it. It's not that I can't mock you back. It's that I would rather not. But if you are really bored I will try to oblige you. Cheers, Sea

chiaThePet -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/12/2008 4:46:42 PM)
Yes, I am known as I am known, as I previously stated. (Post 2) However, I respond to many different discussions in many different ways. Here, it is made clear, that in all your words of how being submissive is manifested in many ways within and without pertaining to yourself, I am limited to that which benefits you most in this situation. You have already mocked me by doubting my sincerity. Much obliged. I'll just run along now and leave you to your ego. chia* (the pet)

VeryMercurial -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/12/2008 6:44:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chiaThePet Yes, I am known as I am known, as I previously stated. (Post 2) However, I respond to many different discussions in many different ways. Here, it is made clear, that in all your words of how being submissive is manifested in many ways within and without pertaining to yourself, I am limited to that which benefits you most in this situation. You have already mocked me by doubting my sincerity. Much obliged. I'll just run along now and leave you to your ego. chia* (the pet) Submissive males with huge ego's? Say it is not possible! <big smirk>

slvemike4u -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/12/2008 11:31:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chiaThePet I think introspection and understanding one's psychology is constructive and of practical benefit.. And I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume your post is more for sake of humor than to slam the discussion. Cheers, Sea In the interum of this thread, it became quite pellucid unto myself that deep within, an upheaval likened to a volcanic eruption began to manifest itself in both a physcial and mental bombardment. The views I expressed, and options I forwarded were quite serious considerations, quite serious. Had I wished to slam the discussion, I would have taken the liberty to do so. This was not my intent nor desire. My response was in addition to the discussion, as presented, and I wish to change nothing of it. Here, one may tend to postulate, and rightly so, that my offering was mere jest. I am known as I am known, one whom finds seriousness, simply a bit serious. I might believe, though not thoroughly convinced, that the resolute disection and cadence of the subject matter infuriated any direct desire within me to possess a complex, literal and equipoise definition or definitions aligned with the op's queries and the subsequent discussion and subject matter which followed. Simply said, the need here for exactness most often drives me crazy. Thus, perhaps a preponderance exists within me akin to, or perhaps of, ADD, Attention Deficite Disorder. (I lack immediate indepth knowledge, but shall research said disorder, that I might satisfy my query) I feel the need even now to go bang my head against a solid mass. Where oh where is the laughter? __________________________________________________________________ chia* (the pet) We are in the presence of genius here...That was great stuff chia!!!!!

pixelslave -> RE: Are they true subs or only bottoms? (7/13/2008 9:24:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: Hmmm... unless you desire this in a 24/7 context, might one consider this a form of role-play? I use the term lower status to describe an imbalance in authority, rank, power, or privileges (for example, a superior officer and subordinate officer, or a historical master-servant dynamic. I see a difference in rank, authority, or privileges to reflect a difference in power). I do not suggest that the person who assumes a lower status is of lesser social worth--in fact, I dispute that notion (that an interest in submission makes one a lesser person) when I see it. In my opinion, this difference in status is willingly assumed as a ritual or expression of the respective roles. While the term status may not be commonly used in BDSM, I use it to describe expression or activity that is common in BDSM (difference in privileges for use of furniture, one person must seek permission to use a bathroom whereas the other does not, one person enjoys the orgasm and the other cannot have it, use of honorifics). In essence then Sea, based on what you've described above, isn't the lower status you're referring to really the result of the agreed upon power exchange between a dominant and a submissive?? If so, I see no discrepancy, only a difference in terminology. I totally agree that the submissive or one of "lower rank/status" is no less valuable as a person or human being than the one of "higher rank/status". quote: You are correct that I do not seek a relationship with the type of lower status in a classic master-servant relationship. The reason is that while the idea appeals to the masochist in me, it does not align well with my concept of romance and companionship. Yes, it can be achieved via roleplay, or via a non-exclusive or non-longterm relationship that is based on only this dynamic. A broader, or a long-term relationship would lean towards that that satisfies all the components. For instance, I think my penchant for service is there because it aligns or has potential to align with multiple components: status-based masochism, affection and devotion, romance and companionship, spirituality, and ego (because I do well at it). And there might be acts that feed only one component or some of the components as part of a greater balance that satisfies all components. Hey, well, at least I was correct on something! [sm=champ.gif] I suspect, to a large degree we both seek similar things in a relationship with a Dominant in that at the end of the day, we both desire mutual respect and love from a Dominant that will also be our life partner. quote: quote: I may be veering off track here as you did state "that would lessen the ego for a vanilla person", and since you're clearly not vanilla, you may be saying it wouldn't lessen your ego. Is that the case? If a vanilla person had to kneel to convey submission, it would likely lessen his ego. I might instead enjoy the same act without any loss of ego. In fact, it may even be said to be ego enhancing (as holding hands might be for a vanilla man because the act represents a positive interaction in his social relationship). Completely understood! BTDTBTTT! [:D] quote: quote: If not, if viewed in the context of one's spirituality, serving is serving, and to me one's status is irrelevent. Service can be for spirituality. Service can be a gesture of regard and fondness. Or service can reflect different power statuses. How I respond depends on whatever dynamic is created by the persons involved. quote: It appears to me as though determination that one's role is of a subordinate status is something that's largely culture driven and is also a matter of one's self-esteem. In some cultures, the same role would be given a higher status than in others. My interest in submissive activity is not driven by esteem but because it brings me psychosexual gratification. I do not seek submission because I think I am of lesser worth, neither do I wish to be of lesser worth in a general sense. I wonder if my use of the term masochism is throwing you off in the direction of self deprication. Yes, your use of the term masochism is indeed causing me difficulty in understanding where you're trying to go. I generally see emotional masochism as harmful to the ego and self-esteem. I'm not referring to humilation play, a form of what I'll refer to a mental masochism play which could also be emotional masochism play or a combination of the two, that I also enjoy to an extent, that both parties find arousing, but not in a manner that's harmful to one's self-esteem. If it is harmful to the submissive's self esteem, then to me the dominant has failed in her responsibility to care for the well-being of the submissive by engaging in activities that are not in his best interests. quote: I like what I like because it reflects an imbalance in power or status. I like to be under the power of another because it brings me pyschosexual gratification. Why do I get psychosexual gratification from being under the power of another? I consider this response--to get psychosexual gratification from being under the power of another--to be a masochistic response. I understand the psychosexual gratification aspect. You might say that's almost a given. [8D] Where we differ as I stated earlier is that I see being under the control of another as freeing me of social contraints to free myself of inhibitions that our society places on men and women. Being with a woman who loves and appreciates me for the submissive male that I am, allows me the freedom to do that; feeling safe in the knowledge I'll not be judged or diminished by it in her eyes afterward. [;)] What anyone else thinks of me is of no concern. quote: quote: They could be. OTOH, submission could also come from a desire to let go of one's ego. If one doesn't feel the need to be "in control" of things in general or enjoys the feeling of freedom they get when they turn control of their ego over to another, I wouldn't call that masochistic, nor would I say that's necessarily rooted in having a need or desire to serve. [&:] Submission can come from different places, of which masochism is one. quote: that person could simply be coming from a place of not having a need to control others, and open to the guidance and direction from another they view as more capable than they are of making decisions in their best interest. It is one thing to not want to control others and another to want to be controlled by another. Sure, for some people the release of responsibility may be one reward in the mix of things that drive them to be under the power of another. However, there are many subs who are just fine with the responsibility of making decisions. What do you think drives these subs to want to be under the power of another? When I look at myself, I don't feel the need to be in control of many situations. So if a Dominant want to take control of certain aspects of our relationship, I'm more than happy to give her that control as part of a power exchange. To me, control is largely an illusion. Many think they are in control when they are not. I accept that there are many things in life which I have no control over. So if a dominant wants to believe she has control over them, I'm more than willing to let her! From my POV, I've lost nothing in giving control of something to someone else that I didn't believe I had control of to begin with! [;)] quote: quote: You might contrast this with the case of others who view a Domme or Mistress as a Goddess that's worthy of their worship. They also generally view themselves as being of a lower status relative to their Dominant, but they seem to do so not necessarily by lowering their own status, but instead by elevating the status of the Dominant. I find the contrast with what you speak of to be quite distinct and significant. It seems you think it is significant that I have referred to lower status of the submissive and not a higher status of the dominant, with which I disagree. I think you are reading into something that is not there. If you think there is a sense of self loathing or an esteem issue that drives my interests, you are incorrect. My style of service leans towards creating a sense of regality. I use the term status to represent an assumed imbalance of power and rank. The dominant assumes the higher status of power and rank and the submissive assumes the lower status of power and rank. When I am directing the focus on the submissive, I use the term lower status. When I speak of the statuses, I do indeed refer to them relative to each other, and not to the general public. Thank you for the clarification. From your statements above, would it then be safe to conclude that you are of a chivalrous nature and let's put the "woman on the pedestal" school of thought, which is my approach to relationships as well? [8\|] quote: quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea Typically, a masochist is defined as someone who receives emotional or physical discomfort. I am broadening the definition of masochist to include one who wishes for a situation that ordinarily lessens the ego. I consider this masochism to fall under emotional masochism, or, at least, be a mental form of masochism. I add these words to my prior comment: I am broadening the definition of masochist to include one who wishes for a situation that ordinarily lessens the ego, but experiences gratification with no ego loss or emotional discomfort. This is one scenario amongst many that are possible. Cheers, Sea It almost sounds as though we may be saying somewhat the same thing, but using different terms or viewing it from a different context. Just as you view service from a spiritual perspective, I view the power exchange or masochistic difference in status that you refer to as one of freeing me of external constraints. Both of us are having a psychosexual response to the essentially the same thing, but viewing it from our unique POV's. As such, I think we are both on the same page, but experiencing it in our thought processes differently. This is an enlightening discussion that I will need to give more thought to by considering what the stimulus is that I find frees me to let go. Perhaps it is driven from somewhat of an emotionally masochistic or mentally masochistic place in order for me to allow myself to go there and experience the freedom I've described. Thank you for the additional clarification on your thoughts my friend. - pixel For the latest update on recovering Wyatt, see my journal entry of 7/13/08.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0703125