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

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

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

Message

CallaFirestormBW -> So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 11:52:32 AM)
The idea for this thread came out of another discussion going on, regarding personal responsibility and handling certain awkward situations that can come up in WIITWD. 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." statements. I've heard almost every submissive-type for the last few years putting themselves into that "pocket". For the most part, I've pretty much agreed with this, especially because I considered myself in that rank. When I submitted, it was somewhat reluctantly -- only because, at the time, the most honorable group of people that I found to learn about WIITWD from required that submission to enter their house. The titular leader of the household had started out that way himself, and was pretty strict about sticking to it. I didn't consider myself submissive, but I -did- recognize my own capacity to yield, having done it before to enter the seminary. However, there is another type of servant out there -- the person who yields because xhe -doesn't- want to make decisions, and -doesn't- want to have to be strong or deal with crises or direct hir own life. Let's face it -- we're not all leaders. Historically, humans have had a significantly larger portion of followers than leaders, and there is NOTHING wrong with that -- or with recognizing that someone is more inclined to be a follower and not really -wanting- to be the strong 'care for myself' kind of person. Over the years, I've trained and worked alongside, and later, after earning my crop, assisted as Keeper for a couple of these individuals, and, to be honest, they've been some of the best damned servants our House has ever had. I've said, on occasion, that I had a golden retriever who was the most dedicated, and the most dependent, pet I've ever had... and I've had servants who were some of the most dependent people I've ever encountered, and who were absolutely the -best-, most honest, most reliable servants I've ever had the pleasure of working with. 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... with being happy and willing to be led, sheltered, and protected. Personally, I wouldn't turn a servant who exhibited these properties away... and there are days that I think that I'd actually -prefer- a servant who came to me and honestly said "I don't want to run my life. I don't want control... I'll serve you in any way you need me to, but I am -happy- not being 'the strong one". Yes, it requires more of me to keep that kind of servant, because I have to be the strength in the relationship, but I have to ask myself "if I can't handle that, what kind of leadership do I actually -provide- as a dominant?" I actually look forward to having the servant who truly -needs- me... to fight his battles, to stand up for him when he has been mistreated by outsiders, to guide his steps and to help him be comfortable with himself -- as a vulnerable individual, and as a "kept one" who honestly recognizes that as a basic need in himself.. I welcome your thoughts. Calla Firestorm

masterforRT -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 11:55:03 AM)
There's nothing wrong with it-as long as you don't let it become abusive. Playing is great- but sometimes the line can be very thin between the two.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 12:03:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: masterforRT There's nothing wrong with it-as long as you don't let it become abusive. Playing is great- but sometimes the line can be very thin between the two. See, this part, for me, isn't something I consider part of our 'play' -- for me, 'play' revolves around the optional parts of our practice ... I can have a servant who isn't into blood-sport, and that's fine... but personality traits like what I'm talking about... those drift into the "way we live" end of things, instead of the "on/off switch" aspect of 'play'. For me, having someone like this in our life is a commitment -- it is accepting and embracing the person, not just for 'playtime', but for all our time together. One thing I thought about that I forgot to mention is that, as the dominant-type in this kind of relationship, it becomes really important to evaluate how much responsibility for another person one can take on... The tradeoff is that completely yielding servant... but someone has to pick up the aspects that have been laid down -- which means I have to make sure that I have room on -my- plate to also carry the protection and direction necessary to give a servant like this a secure foundation. Calla Firestorm

IvyMorgan -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 12:43:18 PM)
As far as I can gather, as long as both parties are happy, there's nothing wrong with it. There's also a difference between being "weak" in the 'I may be a slave, but that doens't mean I'm weak/not a strong person' sense, and being the sort of person you describe, Calla, who doesn't want control, decisions etc. I tend to shy from responsibility, being in positions of authority, having to make decisions that affect more people than just me. I've learnt I'm happier when I don't have to do those things. That said, I can and will do them, very well, I'm just not as happy as I could be if I were an indian and not a chief. On the flip side, I hate seeing something I know I could do well being done badly by someone else. In those cases, I've been known to take over. But, I wind up feeling kinda "forced" into it, purely because of someone else's incompetance. I don't expect to be in a relationship where I'm completely dependent, never have to make a decision, never have to take control/be authoratitve/be assertive (okay, I might be in a relationship where I'm never assertive, but that's purely because I've yet to manage being assertive in any consistant way). But, I'd like to be in a relationship where most of the leading is done by someone else, and I'm secure enough to be comfortable and follow. I was talking with a friend today, about my generally disasterous trips to clubs where I get weird males following me round trying to touch me, and how the last time I went out there were four of them, and I couldn't make them leave me alone/dispell their idea that they had a complete right to touch/grope/fondle/etc me. He said he'd do the big scary uber protective yelling at males what try to do that to me when he takes me out in a few weekends. And I have to say it was a fuzzy nice feeling. I've never had anyone do that for me before, and tend to be very awful at doing it for myself (they just don't take me seriously, ever, so something I'm doing is wrong). I want a protector, I want a safe harbour, but I know I'm going to still be fighting my own battles, and dealing with the world.

Mercnbeth -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 12:54:10 PM)
quote: ...we're not all leaders... indeed, we aren't. some of us don't have a dominant bone in our bodies and have relied on the dominance of and ownership/control by others in order to thrive and find fulfillment. it has been this slave's experience that the desire to fully submit to another's authority and surrender one's self to another's control over their environment is seen by most as indicative of sickness, weakness, a disorder or syndrome that necessitates professional intervention. of course, "healthy submission" is the determination if one's submissive nature comes into play in the bedroom only, or within the context of one's marriage, or for that special "One" that magically makes it appear...but for any type of dominance over any type of situation to not only rub one the wrong way, but truly feels wrong and eventually manifests in physical illness...the outlook is pretty grim, if one is looking for acceptance from the majority. the desire to dominate one's environment, on the other hand, is not only lauded, it is rewarded and encouraged by most of the folks this slave has ever met...vanilla or otherwise. this slave has never heard of a situation where one would have to go through a period of time dominating and controlling others, in order to be viewed as capable of submission or slavery...but the other way around, isn't that uncommon. this slave believes that it contributes to the negative attitude that submission or servitude is something one suffers through, as a means to an end, or enjoys situationally, until they return to their otherwise dominant persona.

IvyMorgan -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 1:00:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth this slave has never heard of a situation where one would have to go through a period of time dominating and controlling others, in order to be viewed as capable of submission or slavery...but the other way around, isn't that uncommon. this slave believes that it contributes to the negative attitude that submission or servitude is something one suffers through, as a means to an end, or enjoys situationally, until they return to their otherwise dominant persona. That's a new way to look at that situation. Thank you, Beth. ponders

kiwisub12 -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 1:29:25 PM)
I don't want to make the decisions in our house, i don't want to be responsible for anything other than my own stuff, and with Sir i don't have to be - and in fact, wouldn't be allowed to be. And i am very happy. I spent 10 years raising my kids and running my house by myself, and that was quite enough independence for me! I have been there, i have done that, and i have the t-shirt. I love having another responsible adult in the house, and the only thing i am responsible for is dinner and the dishes. I don't have to worry about where the money is going, i don't have to have a "side" on any given issue, my input is valued, but not necessarily acted upon. I make decisions in the house, and our life - but that is because Sir lets me, not that it is my responsibility. And that is the way i like it![:D] Of course at work, i get enough reponsibility to last me for the rest of my life. [&o]

chamberqueen -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 1:30:12 PM)
You left out a category of people like me - and I am sure there are many others that are similar. I chose to submit to the point of becoming a slave. I give my consent willingly and whole heartedly, even if the task is unpleasant. I didn't choose to give up thinking or handling things that come up in a responsible way. I don't go running to my Master to make all of my decisions for me. He values my intelligence and creativity. He likes it when I come up with ideas and solutions. He is always there to lean on, but I never use Him as an excuse to not make decisions on my own. I have a personality which is all my own, though He has helped me to make beneficial changes. Both He and I play to my strengths. Ironically, as a slave, I have never felt more beautiful or powerful or confident. All of this even though my life, not just play time, revolves around doing what will be pleasing to Him and in a respectful and submissive way. It doesn't need to be one end of the spectrum or the other.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 1:36:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth this slave has never heard of a situation where one would have to go through a period of time dominating and controlling others, in order to be viewed as capable of submission or slavery...but the other way around, isn't that uncommon. this slave believes that it contributes to the negative attitude that submission or servitude is something one suffers through, as a means to an end, or enjoys situationally, until they return to their otherwise dominant persona. I have to admit that this is what it started out as for me -- something to have to suffer through. It is interesting that, after a time, when I thought that, perhaps, I was never going to be worthy of my crop under their terms, it didn't even occur to me to breach the agreement that I'd made -- and I finally discovered my capacity to truly yield. Discovering that piece has served me well. It's done wonders for my stress level -- I am more flexible now, and more able to bend to the things that I really don't have control over... at the same time, I have to admit that I am much more comfortable on the 'bossy' side of the equation. That being said, I think that many of the inherently yielding types, who prefer to live with someone else providing the substance, shelter, and direction for their lives, are -forced- by the society that we live in, to basically go through a non-consensual foray into self-direction and leadership. As you said, Beth, our culture really only expresses value for the self-starter (although our educational system is programmed to create sheep... explain that...) Calla Firestorm

DesFIP -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 2:01:29 PM)
The problem is that if the relationship ends, the sub may no longer be able to take care of themselves. It wasn't uncommon a generation ago for men to handle all the money, which worked until a man died at 71 leaving an elderly widow who didn't know how to balance a checkbook, had no idea how to make a budget, pay a bill etc. In many cases the widows literally didn't know where the money was; what bank, annuity, mutual fund, life insurance etc. Nobody should be left that badly off.

Mercnbeth -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 2:13:51 PM)
quote: ...As you said, Beth, our culture really only expresses value for the self-starter (although our educational system is programmed to create sheep... explain that...) it's programmed to create "means to an end" submissive sheep, not submissive obedience as a virtue to which we should all strive, or a healthy adult way to make your way down your path. as soon as one has "gone through" it, they are expected to move on to the much celebrated independent dominance of their own lives. what is mandated in our public schools is to go to school until certain conditions are met, or you and your parents are breaking the law. that's not submission, that's coercion.

kiwisub12 -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 2:22:42 PM)
My mother didn't have a checking account of her own until she was in her 40's. Having said that, i have no doubt that even though my father paid the bills and had the accounts, that she could find out where all the accounts are, and pay the bills in the event of his death. Unless said sub/slave went into a relationship at 18 and never emerged, there seems to be little likelyhood of anyone today not having had some experience at paying bills. Now budgets are a different matter - i have been working and paying bills since i was 18, and my budgeting is still not great, but there are people you can consult that can give good advice. I guess my point is - is that fiscal matters can be picked up fairly easily, so sub/slave won't be sitting in a repossessed house wondering what happened. If nothing else the lawyer handling the estate could be retained to help.

NuevaVida -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 5:24:27 PM)
Society doesn't like those who are perceived as "weak." It is clear, not only on these boards, in this "lifestyle", but in life in general. There seems to be this certain level of achievement we all must reach - whether financially, independently, emotionally, or whatever - that, until we reach it, we have not garnered the respect of others. This is seen on the boards here all the time. There are several women here who are enslaved and who have my sincere respect, but who might fit into that ever popular criticism of "doormat" or "robot" or whatever else the better-thans seem to want to call it. The fact is, there are all kinds of people in this world. We might not want to live the way others do, but I never did understand the need to hurl insults at someone who will do whatever his/her owner wants, or who is perfectly happy to be utterly submissive in all things and fully dependent on the owner. Being dependent or less emotionally strong/independent (for lack of a better word) does not mean being stupid, or less valuable a human being. I'm pretty sure if a dependent slave's owner went away tomorrow, survival instincts would kick in and the slave would figure out a way to get by. Sometimes people act as though the slave would probably just sit on the floor until he/she either starved or until someone else came to his/her rescue. In my opinion, however, this does not make the slave unaccountable for being in whatever position he/she ends up in. But the lack of compassion for those who might think or live differently is a pity to me. We're all weak in something, after all.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 5:26:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida Society doesn't like those who are perceived as "weak." It is clear, not only on these boards, in this "lifestyle", but in life in general. There seems to be this certain level of achievement we all must reach - whether financially, independently, emotionally, or whatever - that, until we reach it, we have not garnered the respect of others. This is seen on the boards here all the time. There are several women here who are enslaved and who have my sincere respect, but who might fit into that ever popular criticism of "doormat" or "robot" or whatever else the better-thans seem to want to call it. The fact is, there are all kinds of people in this world. We might not want to live the way others do, but I never did understand the need to hurl insults at someone who will do whatever his/her owner wants, or who is perfectly happy to be utterly submissive in all things and fully dependent on the owner. Being dependent or less emotionally strong/independent (for lack of a better word) does not mean being stupid, or less valuable a human being. I'm pretty sure if a dependent slave's owner went away tomorrow, survival instincts would kick in and the slave would figure out a way to get by. Sometimes people act as though the slave would probably just sit on the floor until he/she either starved or until someone else came to his/her rescue. In my opinion, however, this does not make the slave unaccountable for being in whatever position he/she ends up in. But the lack of compassion for those who might think or live differently is a pity to me. We're all weak in something, after all. Exactly! CFB

TreasureKY -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 5:33:05 PM)
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." statements. I've heard almost every submissive-type for the last few years putting themselves into that "pocket". ...However, there is another type of servant out there -- the person who yields because xhe -doesn't- want to make decisions, and -doesn't- want to have to be strong or deal with crises or direct hir own life. Let's face it -- we're not all leaders. ... I think that I can really appreciate that there really is nothing -wrong- with NOT being a self-directed servant... with being happy and willing to be led, sheltered, and protected. It is possible to be both, you know. Just because I'm submissive doesn't mean I'm weak or trying to escape decision-making. I'm perfectly capable of being responsible for myself and being a leader. I'm actually a pretty darn good leader, too. However, just because I'm capable doesn't mean it's my preference. I'm perfectly happy being led, sheltered and protected by Firm and he gains the benefit of my "capable" skills, however he wants to use them. While I haven't specifically asked him, I would hazard a guess that it also means at least a little bit to Firm that I am his because of choice and not because I just needed someone. The trust and respect that I have placed in him is a great compliment to his abilities. Because I don't need him to lead, shelter and protect me, it evidences how greatly I admire him and his abilities that I do choose to defer to him.

OneMoreWaste -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 5:56:33 PM)
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... with being happy and willing to be led, sheltered, and protected. Personally, I wouldn't turn a servant who exhibited these properties away... and there are days that I think that I'd actually -prefer- a servant who came to me and honestly said "I don't want to run my life. I don't want control... I'll serve you in any way you need me to, but I am -happy- not being 'the strong one". Yes, it requires more of me to keep that kind of servant, because I have to be the strength in the relationship, but I have to ask myself "if I can't handle that, what kind of leadership do I actually -provide- as a dominant?" I actually look forward to having the servant who truly -needs- me... to fight his battles, to stand up for him when he has been mistreated by outsiders, to guide his steps and to help him be comfortable with himself -- as a vulnerable individual, and as a "kept one" who honestly recognizes that as a basic need in himself.. I welcome your thoughts. Thank You. It's a very refreshing thing to read, against a backdrop of so many Dominants (Females in particular) who only want strong, confident, decisive, ambitious, successful, ad nauseum... It almost seems as though people who are submissive by nature are actually less welcome in the BDSM "world" than they are in general society. quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP The problem is that if the relationship ends, the sub may no longer be able to take care of themselves. It wasn't uncommon a generation ago for men to handle all the money, which worked until a man died at 71 leaving an elderly widow who didn't know how to balance a checkbook, had no idea how to make a budget, pay a bill etc. In many cases the widows literally didn't know where the money was; what bank, annuity, mutual fund, life insurance etc. Nobody should be left that badly off. I would consider that to be a failure of the husband/Dominant- when you take responsibility for someone to that extent, then IMO it's your obligation to make sure that they are not totally set adrift if/when the worst happens.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 5:59:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY It is possible to be both, you know. Just because I'm submissive doesn't mean I'm weak or trying to escape decision-making. I'm perfectly capable of being responsible for myself and being a leader. I'm actually a pretty darn good leader, too. However, just because I'm capable doesn't mean it's my preference. I'm perfectly happy being led, sheltered and protected by Firm and he gains the benefit of my "capable" skills, however he wants to use them. While I haven't specifically asked him, I would hazard a guess that it also means at least a little bit to Firm that I am his because of choice and not because I just needed someone. The trust and respect that I have placed in him is a great compliment to his abilities. Because I don't need him to lead, shelter and protect me, it evidences how greatly I admire him and his abilities that I do choose to defer to him. Yes, I realize that it is possible to be both -- as I said, most of the submissive types I've encountered over the years fall into that category... they're perfectly suited to leadership, and don't really shy from self-direction, and they -choose- to give themselves up to someone with that understood.... Frankly, this isn't about that group of submissive types -- this really -is- about it being really OK to -not- be suited to leadership... that it is ok to struggle not to self-direct...and that there is nothing wrong with seeking someone because there is a genuine need in one's life for someone to lead, shelter, and protect. Vulnerability is -not- a sin. The point of this post was that it is NOT a bad thing to need, and to know that you need, and to seek out what you need... and that it is not a bad thing to welcome someone who -does- need. (Needy is -also- not a dirty word). It's ok to have someone in one's life who fights ones battles for one... and it is ok to be the person who gets off on fighting other people's battles and guiding other peoples lives, and who is not embarrassed or ashamed to keep someone who needs them. I started listening and reading, and found it interesting how many people want to dominate someone... but don't really want the submissive type to -need- them... and how many s-types are afraid that someone might think that they -do- need their dominant type. I think I realized that, for me, that simply no longer made sense. Calla Firestorm

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 6:04:27 PM)
I find its worse for the doms. As much as we like to preach about subs being strong, the reality is that we encourage subs to be unable to take care of themselves all over the place. Thats why so many need to become brats because they see no other option for "strong, smart, witty, outspoken" Instead of madonna/whore, we get "sub/brat" Admitting strengths and weaknesses is imperative for all self awareness. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be in a relationship so you can relinquish responsibilities, so you don't have to take care of things and so people won't rely on you- as long as you openly and freely take that for yourself. What usually happens is they say "I'm strong dammit! I just can't go to a munch without my protector" That's a bit off.

lovingpet -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 6:10:14 PM)
As long as this is not an escapism, I see no problem with a person wanting to be accepted for who they are. There is a difference between expressing and seeking to fill a sense of who you are and intentionally ducking responsibility. Although many women of the past and, in this case, submissives of whatever gender did not have an active role in many aspects of life that were considered "responsible", they still had responsibilities. The fact that it was laid out for them what they were and how they were to be handled holds no bearing on the fact that if these things did not get done and in the proper way, the household would have suffered. That is still responsibility. We are all weak. To what extent and in what ways differs. Some weaknesses are viewed as strengths in society. Others are looked upon with disdain or pity. Regardless of this perspective, they are all simply weaknesses. They are areas that could be improved upon if the person so desired. If the person is happy and functional as is, then what is the issue? There is a dangerous cliff at any far end of the spectrum. Dominance can tip into abuse and more. Submissiveness can tip into apathy and more. So one is more preferable to the other? It is only so because society has chosen to make it so. There is nothing wrong with this type of person as long as they stay away from the cliffs inherent to the position. lovingpet

Ialdabaoth -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/17/2008 6:23:07 PM)
I've been saying something similar for awhile now. To me, TPE is about taking people with natural co-dependent tendencies, and then doing co-dependency right. As with anything, there are ways to turn your "weaknesses" into strengths.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875