Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/23/2008 7:03:07 AM   
NuevaVida


Posts: 6707
Joined: 8/5/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twicehappy2x
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".  


I'd say yes!  Not only that, but it's brave to admit it in today's world.  As you can see in this thread alone, so many are in opposition to such a view.

I used to be the type that felt submissive to (almost) all men.  I ended up being trained away from that for a number of reasons (and it was not an easy training, mind you).  One of the reasons was for the benefit of my master at the time - as it did feed his ego to have a slave who would submit to no one but him.  But another key reason is because that particular trait in me led me down some emotionally/mentally harmful roads.  Wanting to please everyone, all the time, and not always finding myself amongst well intended people (or of well intended people who did not understand their effects on me), my non-discerning submission was often taken advantage of.  I was left confused and wary of trusting anyone. 

In short, I ended up worse off for being that way.  Learning to not be that way felt awkward and unnatural to me, but it was a condition of pleasing my former master, so I did.  Personally, my life is better for it now and I'm grateful for the teachings.  But I do feel that looking down on those who are submissive in all things is an unfair and prejudice view.  This bit about one "type" having more value than the other doesn't make sense, as it depends on what an owner finds value in.  Is Coke more valuable than Pepsi?  Sure, if one prefers Coke.  No, if one prefers Pepsi.

There seems to be a mindset in society that dependency equals weakness, lack of value, a burden, and a whole bunch of other negative adjectives.   But, surprise as it may be, there are people who find beauty and value in vulnerable dependency.  I don't know why people who aren't affected in any way by such submissives are always so quick to criticize them, but perhaps that's just human nature.

_____________________________

Live Simply. Love Generously. Care Deeply. Speak Kindly.



(in reply to Twicehappy2x)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/23/2008 7:08:09 AM   
Icarys


Posts: 5757
Status: offline
Well maybe i will get some slack for this but I'm gonna say it anyway lol. I agree we are are equal in this lifestyle or at least for the most part it might be better if we all saw it that way but the truth is there are extremes on both ends. Some are, by my standards more submissive than others. Does it make them any less submissive? Yes, to me it does, because i'm looking for something else. Does it mean they are less of a submissive in general? No. There are some who will do for most anyone and there are some who will do for Just The Right Man and even some who would do very little. No different than any Dominant.

Is it a weakness to be at one end or the other? Absolutely not. Be happy with who and what you are, if not be honest to yourself and change it.


_____________________________

submission - the feeling of patient, submissive humbleness - the state of being submissive or compliant; meekness.

Alaska Bound-The Official Countdown Has Started!
http://tinyurl.com/872mcu3
http://alturl.com/mog7m

(in reply to marieToo)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/23/2008 7:12:58 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

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?

 
this slave has stated previously that she does not "feel" submission nor is she "inspired" to submit by way of another's overwhelming dominance.  this slave has NEVER stated it is the one true way, or that others who don't are "undesirable"---it's just the way this slave operates.
 
submission is inherent to this slave's personality---she has no "dominant" side.  because she is owned, her loyalty and her submission are focused on Master's desires.  instead of just automatically serving folk, this slave must ask permission from Him to do things, for her self and for others.
 
could this slave be anyone's slave?  obviously not...there aren't very many who advertise for/want a submissive who isn't the dominant force in her life and is inspired to submit only to them...this slave is neither, so it wouldn't be so much that this slave couldn't submit to them, it is they wouldn't want her to.  several have posted that it isn't "special" for them, if one is submissive to all.
 
and no, there was nothing about Master that "inspired" this slave's submission.  this slave's submission was already there and had been hanging around for decades, just like the red hair on her head, the first time we met.
 
one of the things that makes our relationship work so well is that He is NOT one of those who wants an otherwise dominant woman to submit only to Him and this slave is NOT one of those who wants a submissive man to dominate her up until she says no.  He appreciates the value of this slave's submission, in that submission by "inspiration" is not what everyone experiences or desires.

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.



perhaps not, but this slave wasn't talking about "a lot of people", she was talking about her passive, submissive personality and others that also have a passive, submissive personality, specifically.  either way, it does not equal weak, stupid or incapable of loyalty/fidelity.

(in reply to marieToo)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/23/2008 7:28:50 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TysGalilah

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.


absolutely, bully for everyone who has found what they need.  and another big "Hooo-ray" that we aren't ALL the same, with the same needs, wants, desires and personality as the next person along on this thread.
 
this slave is very happy for those folks inspired by Their One that they can choose to submit in a comfortable, safe caring environment.  more power to them.
 
what is disappointing is when those folks come down on others who are happy in their submission and don't experience submission the same way and say things like this:
I don't know whether to be very concerned for you, or doubt what you say is really the way you live.

(in reply to TysGalilah)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/23/2008 8:00:04 AM   
MadRabbit


Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline
I decided I wanted to avoid getting in the middle of this one, but decided I at least wanted to contribute my own personal criteria.

I tend to take a more Aristotelian viewpoint to life where I believe in moderation and balance in everything.

Much in the same way I have to balance my own desire and need to be in control and in charge of situations with the fact that things like social position and job class present the pragmatic dilemma that I will have to, at some point or another, submit to the authority of another, someone who has a preference and desire for not being in control will have to accept the pragmatic fact that life will require them to be independent and make decisions.

Do I particularly like being ordered around by my tool-bag of a boss? Not really. Do I expect someone to enjoy a position of independence when personal orientation directs them to a place of subservience? Not at all. But preference is a far cry from inability.
 
In keeping with that viewpoint of moderation, a fiercely independent, overly outspoken, and prideful person is just as unattractive to me as someone who demonstrates an inability to manage their own life without the influence and direction of another. I don't enjoy it when an fierce independent ideology constantly conflicts with one's submission anymore than I enjoy dealing with someone who lacks the basic life skills to function as a "normal" independent adult.

The middle ground for me is a person who has submission as intricate and natural part of their self, but is still fully capable of managing their lives successfully in the absence of it. The criteria for "successful" isn't measured in any particular financial or career achievement, but rather whether or not someone can progressively move their life forward in a positive manner on their own. Personal experience has shown me that people who can't result in a negative impact and drain on my own life instead of bringing something positive to the relationship.





_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/23/2008 8:16:52 AM   
Icarys


Posts: 5757
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

I decided I wanted to avoid getting in the middle of this one, but decided I at least wanted to contribute my own personal criteria.

I tend to take a more Aristotelian viewpoint to life where I believe in moderation and balance in everything.

Much in the same way I have to balance my own desire and need to be in control and in charge of situations with the fact that things like social position and job class present the pragmatic dilemma that I will have to, at some point or another, submit to the authority of another, someone who has a preference and desire for not being in control will have to accept the pragmatic fact that life will require them to be independent and make decisions.

Do I particularly like being ordered around by my tool-bag of a boss? Not really. Do I expect someone to enjoy a position of independence when personal orientation directs them to a place of subservience? Not at all. But preference is a far cry from inability.
 
In keeping with that viewpoint of moderation, a fiercely independent, overly outspoken, and prideful person is just as unattractive to me as someone who demonstrates an inability to manage their own life without the influence and direction of another. I don't enjoy it when an fierce independent ideology constantly conflicts with one's submission anymore than I enjoy dealing with someone who lacks the basic life skills to function as a "normal" independent adult.

The middle ground for me is a person who has submission as intricate and natural part of their self, but is still fully capable of managing their lives successfully in the absence of it. The criteria for "successful" isn't measured in any particular financial or career achievement, but rather whether or not someone can progressively move their life forward in a positive manner on their own. Personal experience has shown me that people who can't result in a negative impact and drain on my own life instead of bringing something positive to the relationship.






For the most part I agree with this way of life, except in this discussion, I prefer the "weaker" female (as has been implied by some). From my point of view, it's nothing more than preference for one or the other.


_____________________________

submission - the feeling of patient, submissive humbleness - the state of being submissive or compliant; meekness.

Alaska Bound-The Official Countdown Has Started!
http://tinyurl.com/872mcu3
http://alturl.com/mog7m

(in reply to MadRabbit)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/23/2008 3:15:09 PM   
TysGalilah


Posts: 589
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline
{absolutely, bully for everyone who has found what they need.  and another big "Hooo-ray" that we aren't ALL the same, with the same needs, wants, desires and personality as the next person along on this thread. }

I very much agree... I have learned so much and continue to learn mostly BECAUSE of the differences in lives  and perspectives.  I hope I never stop learning..
 
thanks for responding ..I concur.
 
 

_____________________________

galilah

.."There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. " Edith Wharton

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/23/2008 5:44:37 PM   
catize


Posts: 3020
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline
 This is what I have taken from this thread.
 
It doesn’t matter whether “I” could/would do or be what anyone else does or is. 
 
We find our own spheres of existence where our core personalities fit. Mine is not going to impact anyone outside my sphere.
 
I don’t need to “get” anyone else’s life, but I can grow in understanding if I work on gaining insight into my own gut reactions.
 
“Be true to your self” becomes a meaningless echo if I doubt another’s happiness based on my own definition.       

_____________________________

"Power is real. But it's a lot less real if it's not perceived as power."
Robert Parker, Stranger in Paradise

(in reply to NuevaVida)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/23/2008 5:50:23 PM   
OneMoreWaste


Posts: 910
Joined: 8/24/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo
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.


perhaps not, but this slave wasn't talking about "a lot of people", she was talking about her passive, submissive personality and others that also have a passive, submissive personality, specifically.  either way, it does not equal weak, stupid or incapable of loyalty/fidelity.


beth, while I agree with you in general (identifying as a passive submissive myself), I'm not so sure that it doesn't mean weak... I think society defines it that way. You can argue that someone always yields in social situations can still be strong in *other* ways, but that's kinda twisting the issue.

And jumping back a quote to marieToo, I'm sure that's possible, but I get the feeling that being "passive aggressive" is an even *less* desireable trait than passive submissiveness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
Some are, by my standards more submissive than others. Does it make them any less submissive? Yes, to me it does, because i'm looking for something else.


Ack, that made me a little dizzy. Unless that person is actually *your submissive* and you are instructing them to be assertive, they aren't less submissive to you. They're just a worse relationship match for you.

For what it's worth, there seems to be an assumption that being generally submissive/passive equates to being incapable of independent living. Maybe I'm just an even more unusual case, but I can do pretty well on my own. I have a hard time dealing with very assertive people, but I manage to avoid them most of the time. I tend to drift a bit, but not so much that I end up bouncing checks or getting fired. My problem comes in groups... I'll wait around pretty much indefinitely waiting for somebody else to take charge. If somebody makes a decision that I know is wrong, I'll usually go ahead and do the wrong thing rather than raise an objection. I offer help to people that I *think* might need it, and end up offending them, or I over-commit to doing things for other people and end up running out of time. As an everyday example, if I'm by myself I have no problem deciding what to eat. If I'm with anybody else, then it has to be their decision, even if they what they want is for me to decide. I would expect this to be only a minor annoyance, but it often seems roughly equivalent to leprosy in terms of being rejected out of hand.


_____________________________

-and the few still remember passion over rage-

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/23/2008 7:16:33 PM   
Icarys


Posts: 5757
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OneMoreWaste

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo
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.


perhaps not, but this slave wasn't talking about "a lot of people", she was talking about her passive, submissive personality and others that also have a passive, submissive personality, specifically.  either way, it does not equal weak, stupid or incapable of loyalty/fidelity.


beth, while I agree with you in general (identifying as a passive submissive myself), I'm not so sure that it doesn't mean weak... I think society defines it that way. You can argue that someone always yields in social situations can still be strong in *other* ways, but that's kinda twisting the issue.

And jumping back a quote to marieToo, I'm sure that's possible, but I get the feeling that being "passive aggressive" is an even *less* desireable trait than passive submissiveness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
Some are, by my standards more submissive than others. Does it make them any less submissive? Yes, to me it does, because i'm looking for something else.


Ack, that made me a little dizzy. Unless that person is actually *your submissive* and you are instructing them to be assertive, they aren't less submissive to you. They're just a worse relationship match for you.

For what it's worth, there seems to be an assumption that being generally submissive/passive equates to being incapable of independent living. Maybe I'm just an even more unusual case, but I can do pretty well on my own. I have a hard time dealing with very assertive people, but I manage to avoid them most of the time. I tend to drift a bit, but not so much that I end up bouncing checks or getting fired. My problem comes in groups... I'll wait around pretty much indefinitely waiting for somebody else to take charge. If somebody makes a decision that I know is wrong, I'll usually go ahead and do the wrong thing rather than raise an objection. I offer help to people that I *think* might need it, and end up offending them, or I over-commit to doing things for other people and end up running out of time. As an everyday example, if I'm by myself I have no problem deciding what to eat. If I'm with anybody else, then it has to be their decision, even if they what they want is for me to decide. I would expect this to be only a minor annoyance, but it often seems roughly equivalent to leprosy in terms of being rejected out of hand.


Less as in they aren't the right one for me.


As for society seeing people that are passive/submissive as weak? Who needs those people when they have a home here.

And for what it's worth? Your type of female is prized by me and is held as more valuable by preference. So there for you are more submissive in my eyes based solely on my own tastes. I'm not hung up on who is more or less as it pertains to everyone else only as it pertains to me if that makes sense to you. That in no way means i look down on someone that doesn't fit my criteria in the least.


_____________________________

submission - the feeling of patient, submissive humbleness - the state of being submissive or compliant; meekness.

Alaska Bound-The Official Countdown Has Started!
http://tinyurl.com/872mcu3
http://alturl.com/mog7m

(in reply to OneMoreWaste)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/23/2008 10:42:39 PM   
NuevaVida


Posts: 6707
Joined: 8/5/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

“Be true to your self” becomes a meaningless echo if I doubt another’s happiness based on my own definition.       


Oh I LOVE this!

_____________________________

Live Simply. Love Generously. Care Deeply. Speak Kindly.



(in reply to catize)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/24/2008 5:03:03 AM   
catize


Posts: 3020
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline
 
Thanks, NV, I admit it’s a work in progress for me, but I’m getting there! 

_____________________________

"Power is real. But it's a lot less real if it's not perceived as power."
Robert Parker, Stranger in Paradise

(in reply to NuevaVida)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/24/2008 7:52:11 AM   
Icarys


Posts: 5757
Status: offline
quote:

“Be true to your self” becomes a meaningless echo if I doubt another’s happiness based on my own definition.


I would agree with that.


_____________________________

submission - the feeling of patient, submissive humbleness - the state of being submissive or compliant; meekness.

Alaska Bound-The Official Countdown Has Started!
http://tinyurl.com/872mcu3
http://alturl.com/mog7m

(in reply to catize)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/24/2008 8:42:37 AM   
LadyHibiscus


Posts: 27124
Joined: 8/15/2005
From: Island Of Misfit Toys
Status: offline
This has been a remarkable and thought provoking thread.  I am rather surprised that no other female dominants have come in with their opinions on the issue, but I suspect that that has to do with the very different notions of what a femdom expects of her MALE submissives. 

_____________________________

[page 23 girl]



(in reply to Icarys)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/24/2008 7:08:12 PM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

This has been a remarkable and thought provoking thread.  I am rather surprised that no other female dominants have come in with their opinions on the issue, but I suspect that that has to do with the very different notions of what a femdom expects of her MALE submissives. 



I'm curious about your thoughts on the bolded part, mostly because I don't make a big distinction between what I expect of my male s-types and my female s-types, and I'm curious about whether there is a real or perceived difference for other FemDoms where gender is concerned.

If so, I wonder if it is possible that this actual or perceived gender difference may be the reason we also haven't heard much from the male s-types where this thread is concerned.

Calla Firestorm

_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to LadyHibiscus)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/24/2008 8:26:23 PM   
BeingChewsie


Posts: 1633
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline
Quick reply:

Just a quick thanks to the OP for this thread. I don't have anything to add other than I am the type of person described in the OP and in this household that is OK.

_____________________________

"In fact, it is my contention that most women are accepting of way less than optimal circumstance constantly, and are lucky to be 'snagged' by the right man, if ever. But it is more by happy accident than by their design. "
~Ron and Hup

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/24/2008 8:47:35 PM   
OneMoreWaste


Posts: 910
Joined: 8/24/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
If so, I wonder if it is possible that this actual or perceived gender difference may be the reason we also haven't heard much from the male s-types where this thread is concerned.

Calla Firestorm


Well, in fairness, I don't think male subs are an especially chatty demographic when it comes to feelings/philosophy/etc. But you add that to stigma from society at large, stigma from the BDSM community in general, stigma from Female Dominants in particular, and no real prurient value to the topic... Most folk with sense are gonna lay low.


_____________________________

-and the few still remember passion over rage-

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/25/2008 6:48:16 AM   
Icarys


Posts: 5757
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OneMoreWaste

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
If so, I wonder if it is possible that this actual or perceived gender difference may be the reason we also haven't heard much from the male s-types where this thread is concerned.

Calla Firestorm


Well, in fairness, I don't think male subs are an especially chatty demographic when it comes to feelings/philosophy/etc. But you add that to stigma from society at large, stigma from the BDSM community in general, stigma from Female Dominants in particular, and no real prurient value to the topic... Most folk with sense are gonna lay low.



 i Just realized that you were male....i rarely perv profiles. (I made a statement earlier about your type of female.in this case it might have been better to generalize lol)


_____________________________

submission - the feeling of patient, submissive humbleness - the state of being submissive or compliant; meekness.

Alaska Bound-The Official Countdown Has Started!
http://tinyurl.com/872mcu3
http://alturl.com/mog7m

(in reply to OneMoreWaste)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/25/2008 9:11:12 AM   
LadyHibiscus


Posts: 27124
Joined: 8/15/2005
From: Island Of Misfit Toys
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OneMoreWaste

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
If so, I wonder if it is possible that this actual or perceived gender difference may be the reason we also haven't heard much from the male s-types where this thread is concerned.

Calla Firestorm


Well, in fairness, I don't think male subs are an especially chatty demographic when it comes to feelings/philosophy/etc. But you add that to stigma from society at large, stigma from the BDSM community in general, stigma from Female Dominants in particular, and no real prurient value to the topic... Most folk with sense are gonna lay low.



Thought you'd never ask!  :)  OneMoreWaste, you really need to take a step back and get to know folks around here.  Once you've spent time on the Ask A Mistress forum, you'll see which men love to talk.  (try to get mine to shut up...)  You might want to engage a few of them in conversation, and see what happens.

First, I want to say  that I am in full agreement that we should go for our strengths--and weaknesses, if that is how they are seen.  We are in this arena to enhance our lives, and to live fully.  How can we do that by trying to be something alien to ourselves?   I am one of those people who doesn't have a submissive bone in her body.  As the daughter of an ethnic household, I was RAISED to serve, and I continue to do so--but I have no clue how to submit.  It's an entirely different mindset, one that I am learning about from my submissive friends.   I have tremendous respect and admiration for beth, and thank her for her insightful sharing.  Daddys prop, I have only read some of your posting, and I am impressed by your clear understanding of where you are.  Could I live as either of those women?  Never.  Nor would I choose them to serve me, because they are not suited to MY needs.  

***Bear in mind that as I speak, it is from the viewpoint of a female dominant who has been out and about in the scene since Before Teh Internets.  I have been a group organizer, community educator, DM'd, been a pro dominant, the whole nine yards.  In other words, I have met many people from around the country, and done a lot of things.  My opinions are MY OWN, but they are based in much life experience.  I am the last person to wave the Twue Way flag, and if I seem to be making generalizations,  it's because I am!  YMMV

Is there a stigma against male submissives and female dominants in the scene?  Yes and no.  Easy answer, right?  Truly, I have never seen any "no femdoms allowed" sign on a door, and I don't recall anyone dissing me to my face.  Still, I have stayed away from events because the atmosphere was just not welcoming, and Club FEM was started for a reason.  A spanking club I used to participate in actually banned females topping males in the public play area!  Why?  Because the male tops were made uncomfortable!   How much more difficult it must be for the male bottoms and submissives to go out into a potentially hostile scene!  We're supposed to be  welcoming and nice in theory, but we know it's not true.  Gender roles are very strongly ingrained all over the world, and anyone who thinks that folk enter WIIWD free of prejudice are dreaming. 

Is there a stigma against male submissives in the world at large?  I'm not sure how there can be, if we are using the scene definition of submission.  Does the western world reward self-starters?  In theory, yes.  Our media will tell you that the person who gets up early and stays late gets the blackberry and the corner office.  Still, I do not believe that to be true in the greater world.  How many corner offices are there?  Where would an army be without its grunts?   The fact is that we need our support staffs.  We need people to just fucking FOLLOW DIRECTIONS and get the job done, regardless of gender.  Madison Avenue makes leadership look glam, but the majority of the world will never get there, and really doesn't want to.  Placed in a support job, how would anyone know that a person was "submissive"?  If they were following through, wouldn't it just seem that they were good at their job?  Or are submissives little Walter Mittys everywhere they go, eyes to the floor?  That seems like as bad a stereotype as any.

Now, for female dominants and what they want.  Yes, it's generalization time!  I've had people serve me in various capacities over the years.  If I want a *servant*, my requirements are going to be the same, regardless of gender.  I do not care who sets my appointments, runs errands, or laces my corset, as long as they do it properly.   If I want a personal submissive, or (heaven forfend) a life partner, my needs as a mostly het female are different.

Female dominants are human beings.  That would seem straightforward, wouldn't it?  No female submissive would approach a male dominant as if he were some kind of commodity provider, right?  :) Still, I will venture to say that most males approach femdoms as fancy fantasy machines.  This is not appealing behaviour.  It is very very difficult to feel kindly toward the men that ARE genuine when there is so much dross to filter through.   I am sorry that I had to pitch my own profile with a series of I AM NOT statements in order to limit the barrage of mail from wankers.  Do male dominants have this problem?  Are the ladies out there sending mail saying "I like oral worship" to random strangers?  I am thinking the answer is no.   I don't offer this as a litany of complaint, just as an example of how male submissives really have to work to get noticed, and prove that they are not simply out to have their fetish itches scratched. 

Do femdoms want CEO's?  This one does not.  While I would like someone gainfully employed, an executive type is spending too much time at work to suck up to ME, and isn't that his real job?  :)  Truly, why are women stuck with this stereotype that we are greedy bitches who want to crush The Man under our stilettos?  Who thought that up, anyway?  I am betting it's some CEO's fantasy.  A dominant of any gender wants a person who is compatible and does their job.  I admit freely that I do not do well with passive people.  I need someone assertive who speaks up, and doesn't need detailed directions.  That does not mean that I don't want to be the one making decisions, it means that when I say, "I need X done this weekend" I mean just that, and I don't want to have to offer up a timetable.  One of my friends is just the opposite.  Women have a range of personalities, just as men do, and in theory they should be able to match up. 

I have noticed one glaring difference in maledom relationships v. femdom ones.  Male led relationships often take on aspects of the parent/child dynamic.  How many women out there call their tops "Daddy"?  How often does a male sub refer to his "Mama"?    Men seem to enjoy the parental role, because of the authority aspect, of course, but also because it allows them to be nurturing.  It's easy to be a passive personality when you are the junior, the one taken care of.  How many women want to take on an adult child?  How many VANILLA women describe their mates as the "grown up child"?   By and large, women don't want to take on an extra large child.  Women do not want to have to think for someone who should be able to on his own.  We have plenty of stress all on our own, thanks!   This, I think, is the glaring difference that shows why passive personalities have trouble finding appropriate female dominants.  Traditionally, women pick up the slack.  A female dominant wants to be SERVED, she does not want to have to be an auxiliary brain. 

I have to go do other stuff, but I am sure I have offered up enough hijack for thought for now.  Thx for listening!




_____________________________

[page 23 girl]



(in reply to OneMoreWaste)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or... - 9/25/2008 10:26:22 AM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline
I suppose my major concern with people who are totally dependent, incapable of managing by themselves is that eventually their relationship will end and they will become drones on society. Just as I object to motorcyclists who don't wear helmets, because it will be my tax dime that supports them for 30 years in a head trauma hospital, so it will be my dime paying for shelter for those who have no life skills.

I don't care if prop's relationship is something that squicks me or not, as long as she's in it. I do care if he drops dead or tosses her out and she winds up on welfare because she isn't capable of getting a job and becoming self supporting.

My line is when their inability to function becomes my responsibility.

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to LadyHibiscus)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109