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

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

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

Message

daddysprop247 -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/19/2008 11:08:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida 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. this does seem to be the case with many, and it's always been puzzling to me. so often you hear Dominants say how they want a "tamed lioness," or say with disdain and disgust of how no honorable or decent Dominant could possibly have any use for a "doormat." and of course they are defining doormat as someone who is submissive by nature, as a general personality trait, as supposed to submissive under conditions or only to the Great One. it can leave submissives like myself feeling very much misunderstood, unwanted and unneeded, within a lifestyle where one would think a submissive would find acceptance. fortunately for me, my Master did not want a tamed lioness. He did not desire someone who could be the independent, go-getting, take charge and if necessary ball-busting domina at times, but then come home and bend to his will. the dichotomy there is odd and unnatural to him. instead he desired a submissive who was well...submissive. whose submission did not come with conditions or restrictions, who submitted as naturally as breathing because it is just who they are. who would be utterly dependent and need a firm but loving Master just to function well in life. that is what he found with me, and he values my particular type of submission very highly. yes, it takes a bit of work on his part. others can easily take advantage of me, so my life is very restricted and somewhat isolated. my first instinct has always been to submit..to obey...to serve others, even to my own detriment. left on my own to go to and from work everyday, i could easily become the sex slave of a male coworker and end up taking on everyone else's menial workload in addition to my own, simply because someone told me to. but does my Master view this as a burden, or inconvenience? not at all. in fact from the very beginning he has only encouraged these qualities, and worked to nurture and enhance them for his own benefit. He hasn't taught me the skills or qualities needed for independence...money management, self-defense, bolstered self confidence, driving, a college degree, etc. if he ever had the notion to, he could kick me out onto the streets and he knows that i would have absolutely no means of making a way in the world. and to him, that's a good thing, because it is what makes me such a good slave for him. but it is a sad thing that Dominants like my Master seem to be rare, and that so many have such a negative view on the more needy/dependent type submissives, and feel that we are something to be avoided and scorn, and of no possible use to anyone.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/19/2008 1:27:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant 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. Actually, CD, both types of needy s-typest are 'on the list' so to speak -- but in a sense, moreso the kind that Twice brought up -- the s-type who really needs a d-type to cling to, and who thrives under that 'being controlled' framework where there is a structured, solid world built around hir. Yes, the s-type I'm thinking of at one end of the spectrum specific to this post needs leadership and direction at the outset, but manages perfectly well once xhe knows xhe's been 'claimed' and a basic direction is set for her -- but at the same time, it also encompasses the other end of the spectrum... the servant who, in order to feel safe and be sure of her place, must be micromanaged and who feels most secure with a tight rein and a limited circle in which to run. To me, nothing in this range is inherently -wrong-... while some of us may prefer not to deal with the extreme ends of the range, that's all good... but it seems to me, over the years that I've been watching and participating in the community, that I've seen these -very- dependent servants treated as anathema -- and seen the relationships that include these kinds of s-types nearly ostracized because of the recognition of the extreme need of the s-types... almost as if the rest of the community was afraid that that neediness might 'rub off'. Calla Firestorm

Twicehappy2x -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/19/2008 2:10:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant 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. 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. No, possibly i was not clear enough, i was talking about the type Calla described. They do require much more handling than the independent type. I manage my own appointments, investments, etc..., and theirs, and figure out day to day what needs doing around here and i do it. If Scooter wants to spend the day with Jewel, he can, without worrying about keeping me occupied or giving me instruction or reassurance beforehand. I have lots of things to keep me occupied and no problems fending for myself. The type i am describing would need direction/help with all of those. Plus added reassurance and often instruction like if "Fred" comes over do not let him in. Simply because the hypothetical Fred has been known to fill a subbies head with " They treat you like a slave, you are so abused" And that type of subbie might believe it. While Fred's only real agenda is getting in said subbies pants. Where the independent type subbie , a) knows better without instruction, b) would likely tell Fred where to stick it. The dominant who owns this type needs to be aware of and guard the subby from the "Freds" of the world for their own protection. All of the above require extra work on the dominants part.

Amaros -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/19/2008 3:26:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida 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. I guess my notion of dominance is colored by my military training - one is expected to display leadership at all levels of the chain of command with respect to duty - which typically requires clear communication of what exactly ones duty is, what to, and what is required to fulfill it. Just off the top of my head, if the house catches fire, I'd expect submissive to have enough presence of mind to do whatever needs doing, but if I have specific ideas on how to do that, it's my duty as her, uh, commanding officer, to make sure she knows what that is and train her to do it - if I'm not there, somebody has to take charge. This is a simplistic example, and it's complicated world - the power exchange dynamic evolved in an era of very clear cut gender roles and expectations: now two income households are the norm, not the exception, and we are often required to adapt to radically different situations. The military thing is one model, civilians don't always seem to understand how a person can obey orders unhesitatingly in one situation, and give them (to the same people) in another - they tend to get confused, because it's all a big dominance game most of the time, and they're confused as to what their duty is or who to, and in this case most people default to compulsively protecting their status. As your average submissive has no military training or experience, and to provide it pretty much constitutes a fetish all on it's own, one I don't actually suffer from particularly, so I've been toying with the idea of personae, sort of a managed MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder), where you actually forge seperate identities adapted to specific circumstances, which can start as a form of roleplaying. I'm not sure it addresses the topic in the OP, and I've been thinking of starting a thread on the subject, although it does apply to where it's been headed - for some it's easy apparently, they can completely identify with the role of submissve to the point that it becomes their sole identity ("it's what I am") others have to struggle with the identity of submissive while simultaneously having to play other roles: mother, employee, boss, and a myriad of other social identities. It's a question that's occupied me of late, I really hate to use the word "fake", it seems to me that it's more often a matter of not being able to draw the lines in a satisfactory way, i.e., to claim you want to be a slave when you really mean you want to play at being a slave when it's convenient, and there is nothing wrong with that, it's a complicated world, it's just nice to know what one is getting into to avoid the problem of conflicting expectations. So, more to the OP, I don't see submisivness as "weak", in any dyad, the partners tend to compensate and adjust to each others strengths and weaknesses, and my problem is more that I'm probobly a little passive for a dom, I like a sexually aggressive submissive, and I'm more drawn to stronger women, your "self directed servant", but I seem to draw the sort of take charge types that get offended when I reign them in, i.e, they end up feeling unappreciated, and I end up feeling like situation is slipping through my fingers. In this case, I'm very much concerned with the whole dynamic involved with the delegation of authority, i.e., I'm not a micromanager, and independence doesn't scare me, but if it concerns me, I want to know what is going on and I fully expect to have a say, if not the say in it, no matter how distracted I might seem - i.e., it's my decision on whether I decide to let you run with it or not, so you'd better run it past me, it's really a communication thing. On the other hand, I can really bowl over extremely passive types, as I'm more accustomed to dealing with people at least as, if not more, aggressive than I am - which is not always a good thing either, and I tend to worry about people prone to passive withdrawl - I then have to resist the temptation to talk at you instead of to you - thus personae theory.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 8:00:38 AM)
This has been a source of my continued conflict when it comes to submission. I believe that one of the basic needs of an individual, is the need for self esteem (rather in line with Moslow's Hierarchy of needs). It seems to me, there is this contradictory paradigm, where a Dominant expresses his/her desire for a submissive then sets about projecting the exact opposite in their words and behavior by seeming to demean the nature of that submissive as unworthy. Is it surprising that there is a trend, for submissives to realize that in order to meet their basic need for self-esteem that they have to first acknowledge their strengths (as dominants seem to perceive as strengths) and play to them? It is a rather screwed up way of perceiving things, because it is the submissive's strengths that COMPLIMENT the dominants, or should. What does one expect to happen if a dominant extols the virtue of strength, from their perspective, and demeans the inherent nature of a submissive as weak. Instead of acknowledging the complimentary differences in the nature of each? When people approach D/s or M/s or whatever, without acknowledging the SYMBIOTIC nature of that dynamic; I think they are setting themselves up for failure. What I'm trying to say, and feel as if I'm failing miserably at, is along the lines of what KnightofMists was stating. It seems to me, that dominants themselves express a desire for submissives to be dominants who surrender to THEM, because most seem unable to admire and respect the very inherent nature of that creature they instinctively NEED, but can't seem to comprehend. If a submissive has a strong need to be pleasing, and one of their most basic needs as a human is for self-esteem, then again, is it so surprising that we have a trend of submissives who are playing to what the dominant perceives/projects as pleasing? Am I making any sense at all? This is really a hard topic for me, because of the continued internal conflict I keep coming across for myself and I've tried several times to write this post and wasn't happy with it. It is frustrating for me, and makes my stomach ache just trying to express it but its something I've been wondering at for some time. A paradox (for lack of any other word to use) that I can't seem to personally find a solution to.

Icarys -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 8:26:32 AM)
quote: relinquish responsibilities You don't get rid of responsibilities. You trade for new ones. On a side note: Bring on the "doormats". The one's who are intelligent, gentle, compassionate, graceful, soft spoken women.

Twicehappy2x -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 8:34:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: relinquish responsibilities You don't get rid of responsibilities. You trade for new ones. On a side note:Bring on the "doormats". The one's who are intelligent, gentle, compassionate, graceful, soft spoken women. In a way, this type of submissive does relinquish responsibility though. The responsibility for most things, decisions etc, become the dominants. Did the slave get influenced by the wrong person at the munch? Whoops, dominants fault, they did not instruct the sub not to talk to that person. Yes, they still have duties, but the dominants responsibility for instructing on this duties is far more extensive. I know Scooter wants dinner every day. I do the shopping, i choose the menu, i decide how to cook it. With one of the types of subs being discussed, the dominant would probably have to write the list, decide what is to be cooked, how and instruct the sub accordingly. LMAO...i am intelligent, gentle, compassionate but not graceful or quiet.

Icarys -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 8:57:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twicehappy2x quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: relinquish responsibilities You don't get rid of responsibilities. You trade for new ones. On a side note:Bring on the "doormats". The one's who are intelligent, gentle, compassionate, graceful, soft spoken women. In a way, this type of submissive does relinquish responsibility though. The responsibility for most things, decisions etc, become the dominants. Did the slave get influenced by the wrong person at the munch? Whoops, dominants fault, they did not instruct the sub not to talk to that person. Yes, they still have duties, but the dominants responsibility for instructing on this duties is far more extensive. I know Scooter wants dinner every day. I do the shopping, i choose the menu, i decide how to cook it. With one of the types of subs being discussed, the dominant would probably have to write the list, decide what is to be cooked, how and instruct the sub accordingly. LMAO...i am intelligent, gentle, compassionate but not graceful or quiet. [:D] Your almost "perfect" then. Kidding aside. Yes they do get rid of some but take on others. It's not easy to cater to someones every whim. Forgot to mention selflessness. That's always a good one. I'm quiet usually till you awaken my grumpy side. I prefer someone like me in that respect. As for the grace, there are many forms of it, the one i was referring to was in a woman's ability to submit sweetly. I usually do the shopping and the meal planning.( I fed 2 adults and one 15 year old on 60 dollars a week for 3 meals a day) I let her decide which meal to cook.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 9:29:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW So many people in this community seem to act like there is something -wrong- with a person recognizing that xhe wants someone to fight hir battles for hir, and care for hir, and manage hir life for hir. I remember jumping on this bandwagon (especially as one of those self-motivated, self-directed servants)... but now, I think that I can really appreciate that there really is nothing -wrong- with NOT being a self-directed servant... This really is incredibly poignant and something I've noticed quite a bit in certain circles. While I think the mentality is perhaps well-intentioned, it seems like an offshoot of current geocultural feelings of 'equality' (which is a silly idea) and tha attachment of the notion of certain examples of self-reliance as being the barometer by which to gauge the (mental?) competence of an individual. And, to some (not all), I think it's the last veil of fear and insecurity. Perhaps some sort of justification for not being comfortable entering into a situation of complete surrender...or at least a way to make themselves feel better about their role despite the fact that it doesn't manifest as fully in the emotional/dependence PE department. I think many people unsure about how they would/could handle such a situation automatically shuffle these people into a "damaged" category box, and then declare how they refrain from those sorts because it does not seem ethically sound because they cannot enter into a contract/agreement from a place of 'stability'. There is an erroneous parallel placed between the ability to consent and the way 'need' manifests itself.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 9:33:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW For years, I've been hearing people making the "being a slave/submissive/whatever doesn't mean we're -weak- or trying to escape decisionmaking/living." It also strikes me that people who are truly comfortable in who they are do not need to hang a flashing public neon sign advertising that they are not, in fact, "weak". Maybe it's because it smells awfully familiar, to me, to macho men who make derogatory gay/effeminate comments in order to bolster their personal self image while actively broadcasting their superficial 'masculinity' to everyone.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 9:40:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP The problem is that if the relationship ends, the sub may no longer be able to take care of themselves. This is it. And while it seems a noble projective concern, it's a prettily dressed fear underneath. Ironically, it is the refusing to give all you have to a good, healthy relationship because of fear of a potential result that seems more indicative of a "trait" that can negatively impact a relationship than the "weakness" being discussed here.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 9:47:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FlamingRedhead *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. Thank you for sharing this. [:)]

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 9:48:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero And, to some (not all), I think it's the last veil of fear and insecurity. Perhaps some sort of justification for not being comfortable entering into a situation of complete surrender...or at least a way to make themselves feel better about their role despite the fact that it doesn't manifest as fully in the emotional/dependence PE department. I think many people unsure about how they would/could handle such a situation automatically shuffle these people into a "damaged" category box, and then declare how they refrain from those sorts because it does not seem ethically sound because they cannot enter into a contract/agreement from a place of 'stability'. There is an erroneous parallel placed between the ability to consent and the way 'need' manifests itself. I emphasized one line in particular from this post, because it seems to focus on the s-type's capacity to yield. I think, though, that there is a companion challenge on my side of the collar. There is no question that the relationship requirements between the d-type and the s-type with an s-type who deeply needs management, control and structure has its own set of complexities, and they can be -very- trying... I think, though, that the tendency to feel that one must bury ones deepest neediness and hide one's vulnerability to the world reflects, at least in part, a tendency among d-types to state a preference to not have to deal with the drama and pressure of a needy servant. I've heard so many d-types say that they can't -stand- micromanagement... and the word 'micromanagement' is even treated with disdain and maligned... but surely this lifestyle includes those d-types who thrive on micromanagement and who long to have someone who truly needs that level of direction. There -is- a place for the needy s-type, and for the pervasively controlling d-type. The community of BDSM has its own cliques and struggles -- but I think that we do a huge dis-service to the breadth of possibility when we make people on the fringes of the community, (both the bottoms who hold their own control/d-types who allow autonomy for their servants AND the bond-servants who yield completely/d-types who control every last aspect of their s-type's life) who are the extreme participants in our world, in order to attempt to justify our own fears and boundaries and, yes, I'm going to say the word -- our limitations. Calla Firestorm

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 9:50:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida 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. We are a society that builds pride upon being the "breaker" in a relationship. Being the one that ends up being the 'exception'...some sort of intangible badge of reward for hooking the 'hard to get'.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 9:57:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW The community of BDSM has its own cliques and struggles -- but I think that we do a huge dis-service to the breadth of possibility when we make people on the fringes of the community, (both the bottoms who hold their own control/d-types who allow autonomy for their servants AND the bond-servants who yield completely/d-types who control every last aspect of their s-type's life) who are the extreme participants in our world, in order to attempt to justify our own fears and boundaries and, yes, I'm going to say the word -- our limitations. Calla Firestorm And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. It is the ones who turn this sort of snobbish nose towards ones they would describe as "doormat/robot" who inevitably treat them most with that disregard by considering them less human/worthwhile/beautifiul because of it. I certainly would not want to make a total blanket statement for people who are prone to make these assessments of s-types who exhibit such characteristics...and I know everyone has a different point on the spectrum of a power exchange that is best for them individually...but I can't get away from the smell of fear disguised as vicarious protectiveness (in some cases) when it comes to this topic.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 10:13:59 AM)
Okay...this has really got me thinking and reflective (thank you, Calla!) and I see two things: I think it's perfectly understandable and okay to say: "I do not think there is anything wrong with s-types who exhibit these signs of "weakness" and I do not think less of them as individuals, but it's not something I personally would feel matches well to me and what I seek." Everyone has different specific needs, and that's fine. But (and I was hesitant to use this analogy earlier because it seems so stark, but it keeps coming back)... Some people treat these s-types in the same way some other people look at 'special needs' children. Having no legs or being deaf or blind is, in essence, a "weakness" yet we would not automatically consider a child "less" on a personal worth level because of it. There are, however, people who would feel uncomfortable about it in their lives. Maybe because they don't want that much responsibility; maybe because they would feel awkward in the dynamic. Would you refuse an amputee because they did not possess the ability to walk in order to be able to surrender it to you?

Icarys -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 10:21:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FlamingRedhead 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. I had a good laugh at this. It's the sadist in me maybe. You made some very good points and for me i'd agree with wanting someone close to you as my slave. Yet i wouldn't want someone whose life is completely in shambles. When i say i want someone who is strong, i mean one who is who she is and doesn't have that fear of being called a doormat by others. One who can embrace herself honestly for her submission. Show that "weaker" side and be proud. Somewhere along the road someone came up with the idea that strength=I don't have needs. I make no apologies for taking charge why should a female make any for submitting the way that comes natural to her.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 11:53:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys I make no apologies for taking charge why should a female make any for submitting the way that comes natural to her. Ok, I'm starting to notice something else interesting as I reveiw the responses to this query... despite it being started by a female d-type, we've heard quite a bit from the male d-type and female s-types, but it seems to me that we haven't heard much from the female d-types and male s-types, though. Surely this is not a gender-bound situation. I wonder if we are, once again, coming up against a societal boundary, in even -discussing- the male submissive whose search for structure and management is a need... where it is more ok to admit to even understanding that kind of need if one is female than if one is male... much less admitting to -experiencing- that kind of need or admitting to being a woman who wants to control a man who needs in this manner. Calla Firestorm

Icarys -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 12:02:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys I make no apologies for taking charge why should a female make any for submitting the way that comes natural to her. Ok, I'm starting to notice something else interesting as I reveiw the responses to this query... despite it being started by a female d-type, we've heard quite a bit from the male d-type and female s-types, but it seems to me that we haven't heard much from the female d-types and male s-types, though. Surely this is not a gender-bound situation. I wonder if we are, once again, coming up against a societal boundary, in even -discussing- the submissive whose search for structure and management is a need... where it is more ok to admit to even understanding that kind of need if one is female than if one is male... much less admitting to -experiencing- that kind of need or admitting to being a woman who wants to control a man who needs in this manner. Calla Firestorm Not sure why they aren't responding. I would have a hard time believing not a single female enjoyed this from their male submissive counterpart as well. I don't think it's gender related if i got your question correctly.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/20/2008 12:11:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW I wonder if we are, once again, coming up against a societal boundary, in even -discussing- the submissive whose search for structure and management is a need... where it is more ok to admit to even understanding that kind of need if one is female than if one is male... much less admitting to -experiencing- that kind of need or admitting to being a woman who wants to control a man who needs in this manner. Calla Firestorm I'm torn between two thoughts on this: First, if there is a propensity for aversion to such female s-types based on the level/style of 'need', I would be inclined to think (in a society still very fixated with aggressive masculinity) it may be harder to accept that part of yourself as a male. Second: ...however, there is more public leniency to a subtle notion of misandry in modern culture (think of the TV sitcom stereotype of the doofy father figure who, in key dynamic moments, is expected to yield to his stern, has-it-together wife). So...now that I've talked myself in a circle without reaching any conclusion, I'm going off to work. nod'

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.882813E-02