RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

catize -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 6:42:29 PM)

Sometimes it is not a choice.  One can be weak and desire to avoid responsibilities and decisions, but how many of the strong are willing to take that on with a full understanding of everything it would entail?                 My experience and observation is that those who want to do so are few and far between.

edited 'cuz my space bar is acting strangely



kyraofMists -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 7:22:46 PM)

There are a lot of thoughts rattling around in my brain regarding this post and I am not sure that I will find the words to express them all.

In many ways, I see a dychotomy within myself.  I love that he has the authority within my life and that he makes the major decisions and many minor ones as well.  He remarked the other day that my stress levels have significantly decreased since I have been in the relationship with him and mostly that is due to the lack of worry about the future, the lack of worry over what do I do now.  I do what he wants and if I am unsure of what he wants, then I ask and that has made my life very peaceful.

On the other hand I am quite capable of taking care of myself and doing what needs to be done.  I have learned how to protect my boundaries and I do not perceive myself as being a weak person.

I don't need him to make decisions in the sense of 'can't' do it myself, but I need him in the sense that I am more fulfilled by having him make decisions.  I want my life to be this fulfilled and peaceful, so I need him and this relationship.

In my relationship, this dychotomy is required in order to do what he wants.  I have to have the desire to submit to his will, but I also need to have the strengths to carry out his will. 

Knight's Kyra



TreasureKY -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 8:11:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW


quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

It is possible to be both, you know. 

Just because I'm submissive doesn't mean I'm weak or trying to escape decision-making.  I'm perfectly capable of being responsible for myself and being a leader.  I'm actually a pretty darn good leader, too.

However, just because I'm capable doesn't mean it's my preference.  I'm perfectly happy being led, sheltered and protected by Firm and he gains the benefit of my "capable" skills, however he wants to use them.

While I haven't specifically asked him, I would hazard a guess that it also means at least a little bit to Firm that I am his because of choice and not because I just needed someone.  The trust and respect that I have placed in him is a great compliment to his abilities.  Because I don't need him to lead, shelter and protect me, it evidences how greatly I admire him and his abilities that I do choose to defer to him.



Yes, I realize that it is possible to be both -- as I said, most of the submissive types I've encountered over the years fall into that category... they're perfectly suited to leadership, and don't really shy from self-direction, and they -choose- to give themselves up to someone with that understood....

Frankly, this isn't about that group of submissive types -- this really -is- about it being really OK to -not- be suited to leadership... that it is ok to struggle not to self-direct...and that there is nothing wrong with seeking someone because there is a genuine need in one's life for someone to lead, shelter, and protect.

Vulnerability is -not- a sin. The point of this post was that it is NOT a bad thing to need, and to know that you need, and to seek out what you need... and that it is not a bad thing to welcome someone who -does- need. (Needy is -also- not a dirty word). It's ok to have someone in one's life who fights ones battles for one... and it is ok to be the person who gets off on fighting other people's battles and guiding other peoples lives, and who is not embarrassed or ashamed to keep someone who needs them. I started listening and reading, and found it interesting how many people want to dominate someone... but don't really want the submissive type to -need- them... and how many s-types are afraid that someone might think that they -do- need their dominant type. I think I realized that, for me, that simply no longer made sense.

Calla Firestorm



I'm sorry, Calla, perhaps I misunderstood your op. 

I did, however, read that you wrote of "another type of servant out there -- the person who yields because xhe -doesn't- want to make decisions, and -doesn't- want to have to be strong or deal with crises or direct hir own life ... more inclined to be a follower and not really -wanting- to be the strong 'care for myself' kind of person ... a person recognizing that xhe wants someone to fight hir battles for hir, and care for hir, and manage hir life for hir ... with being happy and willing to be led, sheltered, and protected ... a servant who came to me and honestly said "I don't want to run my life. I don't want control... I'll serve you in any way you need me to, but I am -happy- not being 'the strong one"."

I gathered from your consistent use of the word "want" that you were talking about submissives who have a choice, not ones who were incapable of providing for themselves and had a genuine need.  That's why I added my comment... although I am capable of leading, I do not want to.  Though I wouldn't consider myself special by any stretch of the imagination... I'd guess that pretty much all submissive types desire someone to take the lead to some degree or another.  [;)]

At any rate, I do understand your observation about dominants who desire to dominate but not be needed.  It's never made any sense to me, either, and was a bit of a bone of contention I had when searching for a dominant.  I touched a bit on what I see as this "don't need me" conundrum a few months ago in my Needing or Wanting to be Needed or Wanted... thread.  The issue that I specifically pointed out at that time was in reply to a dominant who clearly stated that he wanted to be wanted but not to be needed.  This is something I've heard from quite a few dominants and always gives me a bad feeling.  My comments included:

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Submissives (slaves, or what-have-you) are often told by dominants that their needs will be provided, but their wants will only be considered.

If a sub needs you, then she is assured of your presence/attention/care.  If she doesn't need you but just wants you, then she is only assured that you may grant her your presence/attention/care, if that is your whim at the time.

Can you see where this might cause some conflict in a sub?

***

My point was the conundrum that is set up in a submissive's mind when in one breath she is told that needs will always be provided but wants perhaps withheld... (this places needs firmly in the "reliable-you-can-count-on-'em column" and wants in the "you-never-know column")... then is told that to please her dominant she should not need him but only want him. 

That sort of places him in the "you-never-know column", too.  It's a bit difficult to develop trust for someone when you don't know if they are going to be there for you.

***

Unfortunately, the first thought that comes to my mind when I hear someone say that they don't wish to be needed is that they don't wished to be relied upon... they don't want to be responsible... that they wish to be selective about when and if they are available and for what purposes.

***

By nature, I'm very cautious about taking risks.  When it comes to exposing myself in an intimate relationship as a submissive, I'm even more cautious that who I'm submitting to is going to be comfortable dominating and able to do so responsibly.


*shrugs*  I suppose my point here is that once I found someone that I wanted to submit to and relinquished that control in my life to him, it basically went from a "want" into a "need".  I can't keep jumping back and forth between "you lead"/"okay, now I lead".   A dominant is either responsible or they are not.  Jerking me around with never knowing if they'll step up to the plate would drive me crazy... and out the door.

Does that make sense?  [:)]



DMFParadox -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 1:45:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IvyMorgan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

this slave has never heard of a situation where one would have to go through a period of time dominating and controlling others, in order to be viewed as capable of submission or slavery...but the other way around, isn't that uncommon.  this slave believes that it contributes to the negative attitude that submission or servitude is something one suffers through, as a means to an end, or enjoys situationally, until they return to their otherwise dominant persona.
That's a new way to look at that situation.  Thank you, Beth.

*ponders*


I'm pondering this one as well. There's a lot of truth in this.

There are societies which do praise the virtue of submission to individual (as opposed to bureaucratic) authority on a large scale; some places in India come to mind.

I don't know if I prefer that type of society, really.

The fact is that there are a large number of people that fall somewhere in the middle of the dominance/submission scale, and would be strongly influenced by the society's norms; and a society praising aggressive self-interest does seem to lead to a more vigorous economy, leveraging those people better. If it were not for our own American example, we'd still be able to point at the 'democratic' changes in India, China, and Russia that have improved the quality of life in all of those places in tangible ways--health care, food, and cultural variety.  But...

The world is much larger than the BDSM scene, and yet it's easy for people to tar with broad strokes 'self-reliance' or 'obedience' as virtues, to say 'assert yourself!' when in potentially questionable circumstance, or 'obey!' in others; when the truth is much more complicated. And it's masked by those occasions where the self-interest of one group lies directly in the path of the self-interest of another. In this case, like a good little American I tend to lean towards supporting self-assertion; but... what if that's wrong?

By demonizing submission to the point where the average person is under strong pressure to not bend to pressure even when they want to, aren't we reducing the quality of life? What are the less obvious negative effects of such a situation?

This question should be looked at more thoroughly.



eyesopened -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 4:32:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
It is possible to be both, you know. 

Just because I'm submissive doesn't mean I'm weak or trying to escape decision-making.  I'm perfectly capable of being responsible for myself and being a leader.  I'm actually a pretty darn good leader, too.

However, just because I'm capable doesn't mean it's my preference.  I'm perfectly happy being led, sheltered and protected by Firm and he gains the benefit of my "capable" skills, however he wants to use them.

While I haven't specifically asked him, I would hazard a guess that it also means at least a little bit to Firm that I am his because of choice and not because I just needed someone.  The trust and respect that I have placed in him is a great compliment to his abilities.  Because I don't need him to lead, shelter and protect me, it evidences how greatly I admire him and his abilities that I do choose to defer to him.


All of my adult life and most of my childhood, people commented about how "capable" and "hard-working" I am.  I spent the better part of my childhood being a latch-key kid who from the time I was 8 was responsible for having the dinner on the table when my parents got home from work, ironing, cleaning, even doing the mending and yard work.  As a teen I could never hang out with my friends after school because of all my responsibilities which didn't end just because I found a parttime job.  Once I started working my parents had me taking care of my own banking, car and insurance payments, etc.  While it was great that I was prepared to take care of myself, I resented not having a time of carefree dependence.  After my marriage I was a single parent for 20 years, continued to take care of kids, job, housework, yardwork, everything.  No one, not one single soul on this planet helped me with anything.  Yes, strong, capable but bitter and resentful.

Now I am free.  I can use my talents and capabilities to complete the tasks He assigns.  The weight of total responsbility is gone.  I am responsible only to complete my assignments to the best of my ability.  Slavery is freedom for me.  I was never meant to be a leader, I was never happy being in charge, I was never fulfilled by being the boss.  Obviously I don't need to be sheltered, protected or provided for, but it feels wonderful to know that I am.



sublizzie -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 5:57:43 AM)

I've taken classes on how to be a good leader. I spent 26 years married to someone who wanted no responsibility yet all the praise for the work of living. I was, for all intents and purposes, a single parent with a "kid" I didn't birth. I am danged strong and capable of doing what needs to be done.

BUT it's not what I prefer. It's not that I won't work hard to do what needs doing but I'd rather that someone else decide on what it is that needs doing. I generally make very wise decisions yet I'm happier letting someone else make those decisions.

I need to not be "in charge". I appreciate the hard work of being in charge and do my best to make things as easy as possible for Santa so he doesn't regret having to do that hard work for me. He doesn't seem to mind!



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 6:47:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Does that make sense?  [:)]



Treasure, that makes -perfect- sense. With you having said that, there is this image that just flashed in my head that wonders how many s-types who -are- in that 'need' category are holding themselves together with bubble-gum and Scotch tape, hanging on by their fingernails, living their lives and hoping that someone, somewhere will 'step up'... and even more, for the ones who have let down their guards and been let down in return... and then have to figure out how to haul themselves back up by their bootlaces and try to survive, wondering why, in a world where people are told "just be yourself", that sentiment just doesn't extend to them.

Calla Firestorm





TysGalilah -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 8:31:07 AM)

 
 
I see a big difference between
  Not wanting to blank
    and
  Not able to blank
 
I think what some ( of us) mean when wanting to break the steryotype of  "weak" because we give our control over or desire for someone else to make the decision> is that it's not because we cannot do it..   its that we choose not to do blank ( for various individual reasons ) ..
 
"weak" insinuates needy or unable to be strong enough to....
 
be in control
make the decisions
set forth boundaries
 
steryotypes and pigeon-holing make it very difficult for the s-type to make the declaration  " I don't want to make decisions or be the one in control" 
 
"What are you lazy?  unable?"
 
NO  I feel my strengths when I am serving the one who feels their strengths when they are leading..

When I am the one in control ( like in almost every other area of my life other than my relationship with Tyson) I do it....make it happen...take charge...am competent and thought of as strong, a survivor, a manager.....
 In reality I'm exhausted by it, at the end of the day.... 
I am not relishing those accolades or roles
and
my relationship with Tyson is where I land and thrive and replenish myself>  so that I can do all the other "above" ..
 
Tyson>  he relishes it..thrives on it...like a tall drink of water quenches a thrist, it quenches his needs.
it = being the one in leadership and command.

There is seldom a day that goes by that I don't wish that I could crawl into his space/arms  and live the rest of my days without a care in the world.
   ( we do not live together )
I struggle with our limitations re: that arrangement  because I personally feel it would do us both good..
But that is not our reality right now.
 
AND
if I could > I would declare it in a heartbeat and not worry one ounce that someone thought I was weak or unable because I did give over all my control to him.    Inside, where it is important, I would know how capable I am and the choice I make to do that is ,for the both of us, the right reasons and nurtures our individual strengths. 
 
 
 
 
 



sirsholly -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 9:30:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida

Society doesn't like those who are perceived as "weak."  It is clear, not only on these boards, in this "lifestyle", but in life in general.  There seems to be this certain level of achievement we all must reach - whether financially, independently, emotionally, or whatever - that, until we reach it, we have not garnered the respect of others. 

This is seen on the boards here all the time.  There are several women here who are enslaved and who have my sincere respect, but who might fit into that ever popular criticism of "doormat" or "robot" or whatever else the better-thans seem to want to call it.  The fact is, there are all kinds of people in this world.  We might not want to live the way others do, but I never did understand the need to hurl insults at someone who will do whatever his/her owner wants, or who is perfectly happy to be utterly submissive in all things and fully dependent on the owner.  Being dependent or less emotionally strong/independent (for lack of a better word) does not mean being stupid, or less valuable a human being.  I'm pretty sure if a dependent slave's owner went away tomorrow, survival instincts would kick in and the slave would figure out a way to get by.  Sometimes people act as though the slave would probably just sit on the floor until he/she either starved or until someone else came to his/her rescue.

In my opinion, however, this does not make the slave unaccountable for being in whatever position he/she ends up in.  But the lack of compassion for those who might think or live differently is a pity to me.  We're all weak in something, after all.


i agree.

the weakest submissive has strengths, and the strongest dom has weakness.

what i have an issue with is allowing the "weakness" to take over and dishonor the strength.



FlamingRedhead -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 9:58:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

Treasure, that makes -perfect- sense. With you having said that, there is this image that just flashed in my head that wonders how many s-types who -are- in that 'need' category are holding themselves together with bubble-gum and Scotch tape, hanging on by their fingernails, living their lives and hoping that someone, somewhere will 'step up'... and even more, for the ones who have let down their guards and been let down in return... and then have to figure out how to haul themselves back up by their bootlaces and try to survive, wondering why, in a world where people are told "just be yourself", that sentiment just doesn't extend to them.

Calla Firestorm





*points @ self*
 
Your thread has echoed what I've been feeling for most of my life...that there is just no place for me in this world.  My mom is a feminist, and I'm sure she's disappointed in me because I didn't turn out to be the super woman they've been preaching we can and should be.  My father was happy to see me as long as I didn't need anything at all.  I tried to be strong and independent when I realized that my now ex-husband who is 11 years older wasn't the man I thought he was and wasn't going to handle the lion's share of responsibilities.  I ended up having what my doctor called a "major depressive episode."  I had tried to be someone who didn't need any help at all and ended up resenting the fact that I needed medication to function.  It reinforced what I'd known all along.....I'm your stereotypical weak woman.
 
So, I discovered a lifestyle where on the surface this seems to be accepted and even encouraged.  However, the longer I was on this site and the more I read, my heart sank and hope was lost.  Dominants only seemed to be looking for strong, independent, self-sufficient, totally has their shit together women.  All the submissives seemed to be exactly that....saying they didn't need a dominant in their life and were only here because they chose to be.  WTF?  It didn't make any sense to me.  For the life of me, I couldn't figure out why a dominant would want to take someone who is completely independent and functioning and then take away their independence.....and why anyone who was this super woman they were looking for would want to let them meddle in their affairs which they seemed to be handling so well all on their own.
 
I came to the conclusion that this "gift of submission" they keep talking about was the reason.  My happy little bubble burst.  My comprehension of power exchange was shaken.  Obviously, if I need dominance, I'm not worth having because I'm a burden.  Only those who don't need it can have it.  *confused look*  Seriously?  You've got to be kidding me!  It's like I told my ex-husband.....if I have to do everything myself, then what in the hell do I *need* you for?!?  *rme*  Oh...wait....you CAN'T need....
 
Then, along came Daddy.  I cried in shame and embarrassment when he began digging into my personal affairs and finances.  He asked me how in the hell I'd been managing.  *laughs without mirth*  I'm too proud to ask for help.  I have done my best not to be needy, but my best just isn't good enough.  Daddy says my problems are miniscule to him and that once I get down there he'll take all the weight off my shoulders....that I won't have to worry about anything except pleasing him and keeping the house.  It's a great fantasy, but....I have a hard time believing that my knight in shining armor has finally come.....especially when I've been told repeatedly that I'm too much or not enough.  *shrugs*  I guess we'll see.



TreasureKY -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 10:48:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Does that make sense?  [:)]



Treasure, that makes -perfect- sense. With you having said that, there is this image that just flashed in my head that wonders how many s-types who -are- in that 'need' category are holding themselves together with bubble-gum and Scotch tape, hanging on by their fingernails, living their lives and hoping that someone, somewhere will 'step up'... and even more, for the ones who have let down their guards and been let down in return... and then have to figure out how to haul themselves back up by their bootlaces and try to survive, wondering why, in a world where people are told "just be yourself", that sentiment just doesn't extend to them.

Calla Firestorm


Yep.  And imagine what it's like trying to hold everything together while looking for a dominant.  The decision to turn over the reigns is a huge one and not to be taken lightly... but while on one hand we're told that strength and independence are desired, on the other it's implied that we aren't submissive enough.  Walking that fine line while trust is developed can be exhausting. 

Add to that any behavior on the part of the dominant that might be seen as a setback to that goal of letting go (i.e. reduction of contact, showing signs of disinterest), and it's no wonder that so many submissives get into an emotional frenzy.

It's also no wonder that so many give up.



CreativeDominant -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 12:27:56 PM)

I found this thread title to be intriguing and I am glad I came here and read not only the OP but the replies afterwards.

Hooray for the views expressed...they were done without rancor or any sense of defensiveness.

I've always stated that I wanted a submissive who could make their way in the world when something happens to me and yet, want me to be the leader.  Want me to be the guide, the decision-maker, the one who will take responsibility for the decisions I make regarding their future and mine and ours.  I want a submissive who can look at their boss and, while not wanting to be the leader, will still take no undue BS from them, then come home and make dinner with me, then cuddle up in my lap and want me to tell her what is to be done this evening.  To revel in not having to make that decision.
I have NO problem with being needed...in fact, I think it has to exist within a successful relationship...or is that only true in a successful loving relationship?  I had never had a woman look at me and say "I need you...I can make it without you but I NEED you to make my life better" until my first submissive.  My second one never said it and part of the reason was that she did not...she wanted me to take on the responsibilities but, as noted by some on here, a lot of that was in the "bad" way as proven by the endpoint of our relationship where after I had sent her home to straighten out her marital situation, she sent me a letter 6 months later with my collar in it telling me how I had failed in not making the decision for her to divorce her husband and stay with me and then ordering her to do so.  So, of all the women in my life, I've had one say "I need you..." and mean it.  I want that again and I don't perceive the submissive who needs her dominant to be weak.



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 2:01:37 PM)

I'm just too discouraged to be terribly profound here, despite having all these thoughts racing about in my head regarding this post.  I wish someone would just tell me what to think (smiles). 

For me, it has always been hard to find a good symbiotic balance where I CAN surrender without finding myself in a bad situation for having done so, despite how badly I might desire it. 

Not every one who wants to be in charge, is capable or ready or mature enough to be so.  Not everyone who wants someone to surrender to them, is ready for the responsibility. 

So much to say and I'm out of time and again, to blasted discouraged to find the words.




OneMoreWaste -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 4:18:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlamingRedhead

So, I discovered a lifestyle where on the surface this seems to be accepted and even encouraged.  However, the longer I was on this site and the more I read, my heart sank and hope was lost.  Dominants only seemed to be looking for strong, independent, self-sufficient, totally has their shit together women.  All the submissives seemed to be exactly that....saying they didn't need a dominant in their life and were only here because they chose to be.  WTF?  It didn't make any sense to me. 


It always reminds me of that old saying- "The only way to get a bank to loan you money is to prove that you don't actually need it". It seems to me that Dominants are the same way. I kinda stick it under the Cosmic Joke category... if some omnipotent entity somewhere isn't having a good old laugh over it, then maybe there really *is* no meaning or purpose in life...



KnightofMists -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 4:51:21 PM)

A strong person!  what does that mean?

A weak person!  what does that mean?

Those answer are going to be extremely subjective and dependent on the standard that we measure a person on.

A strong Leader!  what does that mean?

A strong Follower!  what doest that mean?

I don't know about others.... but I don't see a strong leader and a strong follower as being the same thing.  It's an apples and oranges thing.    I also see a weak leader and a weak follower has being different from each other.

I want to be a strong leader..... and honestly... I think I am rather weak follower.... no surprize there.

I want a strong follower... and really don't have much use to having a weak follower.

so.... lets change Leader for Dominant... and follower for Submissive.........

I want to be a strong Dominant..... and I want strong submissives in my life.  But in my world... a strong submissive is not the same as a strong dominant......... Strong... doesn't mean strong in the same things for each....   I am not sure why people compare apples to oranges or oranges to apples.



NuevaVida -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/18/2008 5:15:33 PM)

It seems a lot of dominants want a submissive to be capable of being a dominant, yet who chose to submit, instead.  Apples to oranges, indeed.



ExSteelAgain -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/19/2008 2:06:12 AM)

There are all kinds of twists on your question. I agree that all of us have our strengths and weaknesses and I certainly know even though I’m a Dom that I have my insecurities and so on.

But to focus on one aspect and one situation, I can recognize insecurities in a submissive and don’t mind using that when we play.

I may specifically confront her by saying something like, “You don’t know what you want so just obey me.”

It gives me a kind of cruel, erotic power over her knowing that she is in one of those helpless moods. The beneficial result to her can be that the mood is broken by the play. She comes out of it secure and happy. A shock, purging therapy of sorts.



Twicehappy2x -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/19/2008 4:57:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

that it is ok to struggle not to self-direct...and that there is nothing wrong with seeking someone because there is a genuine need in one's life for someone to lead, shelter, and protect.

Vulnerability is -not- a sin. The point of this post was that it is NOT a bad thing to need, and to know that you need, and to seek out what you need... and that it is not a bad thing to welcome someone who -does- need. (Needy is -also- not a dirty word). It's ok to have someone in one's life who fights ones battles for one... and it is ok to be the person who gets off on fighting other people's battles and guiding other peoples lives, and who is not embarrassed or ashamed to keep someone who needs them.

I started listening and reading, and found it interesting how many people want to dominate someone... but don't really want the submissive type to -need- them... 
 
as the dominant-type in this kind of relationship, it becomes really important to evaluate how much responsibility for another person one can take on... The tradeoff is that completely yielding servant... but someone has to pick up the aspects that have been laid down  


Grins and good morning. Being pretty sure the post i made in Asmodeus's thread is what brought this subject up, i've been watching this thread and waiting to comment. While there is quite a bit i'd like to say on the subject, i'm only going to comment on a few items for now.
 
It is extremely true that society is geared for/encourages the independent, i can do it myself type of individual. Even, well actually especially here on these boards/in this lifestyle. Which is pretty odd if you think about it.
 
Here we are espousing a lifestyle in which one submits to the other. Yet so often if a subby announces an issue or makes a statement along these lines they are told "get a backbone, be responsible for your own self". I am guilty of thinking that way for the longest time, being one of those independent types myself.
 
It does make it difficult for those who need, i mean really need their dominants to function well in life. I need my Master, but when i was without i still managed very well. Where this type often does not do well. As i commented in the other thread, without an ethical morally responsible dominant to guide and protect them, you often see a trail of bad decisions in this type of submissives life.
 
As we've met so many other submissives in the course of searching for Jewel's subby i began to see more and more of the type you are discussing here. At first i was kind of shocked.
 
Especially when my own Master commented that yes, they are hard to manage because you almost have to control who they have contact with as they are so easily swayed. But that they make the perfect submissive because they tend to be softer, gentler, more easily controlled.
 
Boy did that lead to some soul searching, i thought about trying to be that way for him. Lol, though by morning i decided screw that, if that is what he wanted boy did he make a mistake picking me. I am what i am and he's kept me so far.
 
To be honest, i know Scooter very well, i do not think that in the long run he would have either the time or the patience to handle that type. Not saying that makes him a bad dominant, just to clarify, he is wonderful. After losing my first i never imagined that anybody could ever fill his boots. Yet Scooter has not only filled them, he has given me something more. Just stating his plate is full and that kind of micro managing does not suit his temperament at all.
 
Now, Jewel on the other hand i think would do exceedingly well with one of this type. She is home all the time and would enjoy being needed on that level.
 
That brings me to the statements above that i underlined.
 
It does take a certain type of dominant to handle those submissives who truly need that type of care. One must honestly and thoroughly think about whether or not they have the time and emotional ability to put into that kind of relationship.
 
I have heard lots of horror stories from those who had those needs hooking up with some one who took decided advantage of their neediness. Or who just were not able to provide what the subby needed in order to function well and be happy.
 
So i think the reason most dominants are looking for the independent type is the added responsibility of taking on the needy type. Even though i think they are missing out on some great submissives when they do so.



CreativeDominant -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/19/2008 7:19:04 AM)

I see the point of what you are saying, twice but...and I could be wrong here...I think you have actually mentioned ANOTHER type of submissive rather than the type Calla is describing.

The submissive you describe needs micro-management and is needy of much more contact.  I see the submissive/servant/slave that Calla is describing as one who needs direction at the start and may well need emotional sustaining BUT who is not necessarily clingy or in need of micro-management.  Someone who, once their tasks and expectations are outlined for them, is perfectly happy doing them for others...in this case, the dominant...and who does not need further direction except as occasionally needed to change/correct a mis-step. 

I too have met the type of submissive you describe but they often strike me as more clingy and needy than submissive...their submission comes from a place of need rather than their need coming from a place of submission...and I tend to think they are the type who would be submissive to just about anyone as long as someone was there for them to cling to.  The person themselves are not what is important to this type of submissive, the mere presence of someone to cling to is.



leadership527 -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/19/2008 8:53:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
However, there is another type of servant out there -- the person who yields because xhe -doesn't- want to make decisions, and -doesn't- want to have to be strong or deal with crises or direct hir own life. Let's face it -- we're not all leaders.

To wit... my wife.  And no, I see nothing wrong with this.  She doesn't like to be in a position of making certain types of decisions (notably, the type that pit her desires against anothers).  She is both able and willing to make such decisions, but she'd prefer not to.  The only way I'd see this as a problem is that if it went so far that she could no longer function as an independent adult.  In that scenario, I'd have to start worrying about what would happen were I to suddenly die.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625