quote:

ORIGINAL: Venatrix

All right, I admit that the categories aren't mutually exclusive, but I have a tentative hypothesis and I'm trying to see if it holds water.

We've seen several threads lately about how difficult it is for submissive men to submit, and how frustrating this is for dominant women.  We've heard about subs not showing good manners, that they disappear without a word, how they turn up days/weeks/months/years later expecting to pick up where they left off, and so on.

Being a sub has nothing to do with it, these are simply indivuduals who lack the ability to be courteous

I've started to wonder if I wouldn't be better off with someone who doesn't identify as submissive, but rather someone whose kinks match mine, which include bondage, anal and pain play (or some combination thereof).  My experience with submissive men is that they want to submit only on their terms, which isn't really submission at all.  The men I've come across who identify as interested in bondage only or as masochists have been pleasant and drama-free.  Yet every man I've tried to develop a relationship with who identifies as submissive has eventually been more trouble than he's worth: unreliable, rude, selfish, or just plain messed-up mentally. 

Yes, I do believe it you would get better results, if you adopted this policy. But we as a group must take some of the blame for this. There are a great many individuals who look down on "players" and the "players" therefore feel that they would indeed have more success if they identified themselves as a Dom or sub


I also wonder if a relationship with someone who isn't fighting being submissive would, in an odd twist, actually mean that I'd get more of my needs met, because pleasing each other would be motivated by mutual caring, rather than the fiction that someone is submitting, and but in fact doing it only when and how he wants.

Ultmately, if your needs are being met, does it truly matter what label they wear?


I'd like to hear from women who have had long-term relationship experience with men who are into bondage or pain play, but who don't identify as submissive.  Have you found it less drama-filled and/or more emotionally fulfilling than relationships you've had with submissive men?   

quote:

ORIGINAL: AngelicaGoddess

quote:

ORIGINAL: Venatrix

Another thing struck me on the way home tonight.  One of the threads a few weeks ago that really had a negative impact on my thinking was the one where some of our regular posters were saying that they couldn't see the point to service if it didn't fulfill their kink in some way.  Either they had to enjoy the activity in a submissive way or they had to be promised playtime after their service was complete.  Someone had said words to the effect of why do it if there's no payoff, the implication being "kinky payoff."  Well, in my world, people do things for each other because they care about each other.  My brother doesn't say to his wife, "Honey, I'll build that bookcase for you if you'll have sex with me."  He builds the bookcase because his wife wants a new bookcase and he likes to see her happy.  So that's definitely one of the reasons why I wonder if a sub who claims to be service-orientated might be a worse bet than someone who is just plain kinky.  If there are going to be any strings attached, I'll be the one tying the knots.

Each and every relationship is an exchange and a "payoff" if you like, for example would your brother build a bookcase for his wife and try to make her happy, if she wouldn't do the same for him? Maybe not building a bookcase but doing things that make him happy.

I had disastrous relationships in the past and part of it was my own fault, I'm not a victim, I did my part, I didn't listen what they told me, I heard what I wanted to hear. There was a guy who said he was submissive and his submissiveness was that he wanted to dance for me, ballet, he was quite good at it but I didn't get much out of a man dancing for me and nothing else. It ended in tears, I should have listened more closely.

In our "family" there's a girl who just can't handle her finances, she would fritter it all away on stupid ornaments, clothes she'll never wear, etc. So I organize her finances, give her a budget, she's also the most wonderful maso and a joy to play with, we both get something out of the relationship and care for each other. Would she stay if she would get nothing out of it? I highly doubt it, just like I wouldn't let her stay if I wouldn't get anything out of it. So it's all a "trade off" or a "payoff", the difference is that in a relationship that works, people don't see it as a payoff, they do it because they want to make each other happy. They have to do their part, but I also have to do my part. The clearer people are when they are voicing their expectations and what they are willing to give, the less problems are there in the end, when there are agendas, that's when the problems start.
The "I just want to please you" sounds awfully cute, but I want to know what they are getting out of it, in case it is not just a casual encounter, because then I can make sure that it's within my own comfort zone. I'm not eager to add to our family, but if the right one comes along, I would also not rule it out.