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

marieToo -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/22/2008 7:34:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: the kind of man and dominant that can inspire submission and not just demand its existance or else................................................... bully for you that you have found what you need. however, it isn't the one-true-way for many of us. this slave wouldn't be a match for someone who wanted an otherwise dominant personality to be inspired to submit to them, because this slave doesn't have a dominant "bone" in her body. there are those of us out here who do not "feel" submission and who's submission isn't a product of "inspiration" in response to "The One's" dominance. it is something that is intrinsic to our personality, not something that we "choose" to be, depending on who we are with. and there is nothing wrong with that. having a passive, submissive personality does not equal weak, stupid or incapable of loyalty/fidelity, as has been suggested on these boards from time to time. You've hit on what I've been thinking about for the last few weeks. I've seen this in a few profiles and always wondered if they've thought of it from a Dominants point of view ever. I don't need a submissive to inspire my Dominance, it's in me. So why should a female need inspiration for her to feel it? So Why is it that they need to be inspired and we don't? Now saying that, i don't think I've ever heard a Dominant say that before, maybe someone else has? Excellent Topic. But how would you like a submissive who felt submissive to everyone? Doesn't it have more value when there is something specific about you that inspires an otherwise strong woman to yield only to you?

Icarys -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/22/2008 7:39:27 PM)
Doesn't it have more value when there is something specific about you that inspires an otherwise strong woman to yield only to you? Depends on to what degree she was submissive to another of course but to answer your question, no. I would still hold her submission as valuable. To be honest that's the ideal female for me. So i guess i would hold it personally of more value if she was "weaker" than the strong woman you stated.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/22/2008 7:41:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo But how would you like a submissive who felt submissive to everyone? Doesn't it have more value when there is something specific about you that inspires an otherwise strong woman to yield only to you? Nope, not to me. I like being the framework and providing the boundaries and structure that restrain someone who has no sense of self-protection. Yup... love those shining armor exoskeletons. I'm picky enough for both of us (ok, I could be polite and say "discerning" or 'selective"... but truly, I'm just plain picky). Oh... and one of my preferences is pliancy. CFB

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/22/2008 7:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys I don't need a submissive to inspire my Dominance, it's in me. 50 points. The two different schools of thought seem to be: Trigger sub: "It is the strength of X's dominance that triggers in me the want to be submissive to level Y when I otherwise would/should not be." versus Natural sub: "It is the personality traits and beauty of X that convinces me He's worth being the one I surrender my natural predisposition to submit to level Y to."

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/22/2008 7:43:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo But how would you like a submissive who felt submissive to everyone? Doesn't it have more value when there is something specific about you that inspires an otherwise strong woman to yield only to you? That's the fallacious point of view: that only through selective submissiveness in demeanor can a sub honor the one she chooses. My above post shows the alternative...one which, to me, is much more preferable.

marieToo -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/22/2008 7:43:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth there are those of us out here who do not "feel" submission and who's submission isn't a product of "inspiration" in response to "The One's" dominance. it is something that is intrinsic to our personality, not something that we "choose" to be, depending on who we are with. So does this mean you could be anyone's slave? Or is there something special about Merc that "inspires" you to want to belong to him specifically? quote: having a passive, submissive personality does not equal weak, stupid or incapable of loyalty/fidelity, as has been suggested on these boards from time to time. I don't think "passive" and "submissive" are necessarily synonomous. A lot of people have passive personalities yet don't submit in a relationship with their partner.

Icarys -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/22/2008 7:44:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys I don't need a submissive to inspire my Dominance, it's in me. 50 points. The two different schools of thought seem to be: Trigger sub: "It is the strength of X's dominance that triggers in me the want to be submissive to level Y when I otherwise would not be." versus Natural sub: "It is the personality traits and beauty of X that convinces me He's worth being the one I surrender my natural predisposition to submit to level Y to." 50 wow. (chuckles)

marieToo -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/22/2008 7:48:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo But how would you like a submissive who felt submissive to everyone? Doesn't it have more value when there is something specific about you that inspires an otherwise strong woman to yield only to you? That's the fallacious point of view: that only through selective submissiveness in demeanor can a sub honor the one she chooses. My above post shows the alternative...one which, to me, is much more preferable. At no point did I say that only through xyz can someone honor the one she chooses. I was actually interested in getting an answer to my question from Icarys, because I was curious as to his point of view. I think there are different "types", and I'd go so far as to say that it may be hard for one type to understand or appreciate another. And it's ok to have a preference, but it's not ok to call someone else's ideals or preferences "fallacious".

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/22/2008 7:52:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo At no point did I say that only through xyz can someone honor the one she chooses. Fair enough. You just implied it with the question you asked. An implication which, had it been accurate (which it isn't, correct?), would have been fallacious. Granted, that wouldn't have to mean that two people cannot be fulfilled while equally espousing a fallacious point of view. That's the beauty of compatibility.

OneMoreWaste -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/22/2008 9:28:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo But how would you like a submissive who felt submissive to everyone? Doesn't it have more value when there is something specific about you that inspires an otherwise strong woman to yield only to you? I guess it depends on whether the value is in the submissive behavior, or in the ego-stroke of "winning" it [8D]

TysGalilah -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/23/2008 4:20:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: the kind of man and dominant that can inspire submission and not just demand its existance or else................................................... bully for you that you have found what you need. however, it isn't the one-true-way for many of us. . I never said it was a one-true-way. bully for me hm? well, bully for any of us who have found compatibility, including you. there are those of us out here who do not "feel" submission and who's submission isn't a product of "inspiration" in response to "The One's" dominance. it is something that is intrinsic to our personality, not something that we "choose" to be, depending on who we are with. and there is nothing wrong with that. Never said there was. having a passive, submissive personality does not equal weak, stupid or incapable of loyalty/fidelity, as has been suggested on these boards from time to time. NOT by me. My posts to Prop were mostly speaking to her thoughts and comments about being incapable of taking care of herself with basic life skills. Not whether or not her submission was strong or weaker than mine, in my Ds relationship. Not about her passivity as you put it. It perks my curiosity. I admit not understanding it and so I ask questions. NONE of them are judgement calls and if my thoughts insinuated that at all, I want to clear that up. Actually, Beth, it feels the other way around. Comments are made that "my submission" is the one being labeled as > "not able to sustain a successful relationship". That because I am not completely dependant, somehow that makes me "prioritizing myself" before his needs and wants... and other comments.. perhaps your "bully" comment could be spread around to others judgements.

Twicehappy2x -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/23/2008 4:33:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP The Man wants me to choose to submit to him, not be obligated to in order to have my next meal. He wants me to be able to choose to not submit, because without that choice, I am not submitting fully. In order to give him my total self, the opposite possibility has to exist. What I don't understand, Des, is why you feel like you have to defend your style of submission so vehemently. Nobody is saying that you -can't- be a self-directed s-type. For years, I've heard plenty of s-types extolling the virtues of being a self-reliant s-type, and many d-types expressing their preference to have an s-type who could "stand on hir own two feet The purpose for this thread was to discuss the s-types on the other end of the spectrum, and why those who are -externally- motivated, controlled, sheltered, and directed often get short-shrift in the D/s world (where it would seem that they would be welcomed with open arms), and to hear from the d-types who like being the 'exoskeleton' for their malleable s-types, and appreciate them for their particular natures. Surely, them being authentically themselves doesn't diminish your authenticity, Not picking on anyone in particular here. I myself noted that i am also the "own two feet" type. But i honestly believe that the vehemence that we see from most of the "two feet" type has a lot to do with how and why the dependent type is often looked down upon or told to grow up and be responsible for themselves. It seems even in this age or enlightenment, we are not as enlightened as we would like to believe. As you noted, Calla, fifty years ago the independent types would have been told to settle down, grow up, be a good quiet woman and do what your husband tells you. Or in the case of a male to grow up, get a wife and run your household like a proper man. Maybe we simply need to consider this thought; If this type of submissive knows this is what they need, isn't it actually being very responsible to admit " i need to be externally- motivated, controlled, sheltered and directed".

Twicehappy2x -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/23/2008 4:38:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo But how would you like a submissive who felt submissive to everyone? Doesn't it have more value when there is something specific about you that inspires an otherwise strong woman to yield only to you? Having that submissive leaning toward most of the folks around them is one of the issues the dependent type submissive needs help/support with. It is also one of those issues their dominant would have to keep a eye on while providing control and protection for that type of submissive, if only to keep them from being taken advantage of.

marieToo -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/23/2008 6:15:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero The two different schools of thought seem to be: Trigger sub: "It is the strength of X's dominance that triggers in me the want to be submissive to level Y when I otherwise would/should not be." versus Natural sub: "It is the personality traits and beauty of X that convinces me He's worth being the one I surrender my natural predisposition to submit to level Y to." This "logic" is flawed, because you're basically describing the exact same thing but trying to make one different than the other by creatively using different words. In example A---She's waiting for "strength" to "trigger" her. So based upon the fact that she's waiting for "strength" to "trigger" her, you've deduced that she's doesn't have a predispostion for submission. In example B----She's waiting for "beauty" to "convince" her, and that, on the other hand is indicitive of a person who has a predispostion for submission. Since beauty and strength are both personality traits, I guess both of your types are waiting for specific signs before they share their submission, or "surrender" to a particular dom. What's the difference? I could be "triggered" to surrender to someone because I'm "convinced" he's the right one. And I could also be "convinced" that someone is the right one which would therefore "trigger" my choice to surrender. Again, it just seems like a circle that has no real beginning or end. I don't see any difference in the two examples other than you're using different, and subjective terms that could be interpreted as the same basic thing, in order to support your conclusion that one is a "natural" sub who surrenders "her natural predispositon" and one is a "trigger" sub, who submits by choice when she wants to, despite the fact that she doesn't have the natural inclination to do so. Aren't we ALL natural subs or doms? What's the other choice? UNnatural subs and doms? Most of us have something very important in common when we say that we first experienced these feelings/desires/thoughts/inclinations from a young childhood age. I know I did. And those feelings surfaced despite the fact that I didn't even know a dom, therefore I wasn't "triggered" or "convinced" by anyone to feel what I felt. And since I admit that I choose carefully who I share it with, I'd be a trigger sub in your logic, so where did my feelings come from when no one was there to trigger them? And why did they endure inside of me for the first 35 years of my life when I didn't even have a name for it yet, nevermind someone to "trigger" those feelings, or inspire me to my knees. I couldn't shake this off if I wanted to. I didn't chose my submissive pursuasion, it chose me. But I choose to harness it and direct it, and ultimately express it in the best and most productive way possible for myself and my partners of choice, instead of letting it flounder aimlessly. Does that make me less natural? Maybe what you mean to say is that it's your preference to have a submissive who possesses certain personality characteristics such as passivity, shyness, and humility, rather than one who shows other character traits. There are as many different methods and different forms of expression as there are submissives. To say that submissives who do xyz are natural, and others who do abc are classified as something other than natural, is an over-simplied, and I think, innacurate, way to try to pare down something that has so many complexitites that it can't possibly be reduced to such an extent.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/23/2008 6:27:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo I guess both of your types are waiting for specific signs before they share their submission, or "surrender" to a particular dom. What's the difference? "Would/should not be" versus "natural predisposition". That's the difference. I thought it was clear from my comparison.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/23/2008 6:29:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo Aren't we ALL natural subs or doms? No. Not from what I've encountered here, if i'm to take people's words at face value. quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo What's the other choice? UNnatural subs and doms? I just went over this. The "other choice" are people who only feel submisive or dominant if triggered by something/someone.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/23/2008 6:33:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo Does that make me less natural? I see you're taking my use of the adjective personally...as if to suggest that my use of it is intended to berate the "UNnatural" (as you put it). Perhaps if I use "inherent" or "default" instead, it won't seem so potentially offensive?

marieToo -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/23/2008 6:40:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo Does that make me less natural? I see you're taking my use of the adjective personally...as if to suggest that my use of it is intended to berate the "UNnatural" (as you put it). Perhaps if I use "inherent" or "default" instead, it won't seem so potentially offensive? I'm not at all personally offended by your views. I explained my own experience of myself then essentially asked you how you would classify that description based upon your hypothesis of natural vs something other than natural. Hence the question: 'Does that make me less natural?". Perhaps if I had used a generic person as an example instead of myself, you would have been more inclined to actually address my point, rather than make assumptions about my state of mind.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/23/2008 6:48:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo I'm not at all personally offended by your views. I explained my own experience of myself then essentially asked you how you would classify that description based upon your hypothesis of natural vs something other than natural. Not really. You asked a leading question and then proceeded to answer for me. quote: ORIGINAL: marieTooHence the question: 'Does that make me less natural?". The way you describe yourself seems to lean more to the "Inherent sub" (better?) category. quote: ORIGINAL: marieTooPerhaps if I had used a generic person as an example instead of myself, you would have been more inclined to actually address my point, rather than make assumptions about my state of mind. CollarMe Irony Meter™ v1.0.1 broken.

marieToo -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/23/2008 6:55:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo I'm not at all personally offended by your views. I explained my own experience of myself then essentially asked you how you would classify that description based upon your hypothesis of natural vs something other than natural. Not really. You asked a leading question and then proceeded to answer for me. quote: ORIGINAL: marieTooHence the question: 'Does that make me less natural?". The way you describe yourself seems to lean more to the "Inherent sub" (better?) category. quote: ORIGINAL: marieTooPerhaps if I had used a generic person as an example instead of myself, you would have been more inclined to actually address my point, rather than make assumptions about my state of mind. CollarMe Irony Meter™ v1.0.1 broken. I found this debate interesting and I made my points which I think were valid and well-presented. You've chosen to come at me in a rather surly manner rather than address any of my points in a comprehensive manner. I'm not here to engage in a personal competition with you. Enjoy your day.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625