marieToo
Posts: 3595
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Jersey
Status: offline
|
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.
< Message edited by marieToo -- 9/23/2008 6:18:56 AM >
_____________________________
marie.
I give good agita.
|
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread