RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs

RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (Full Version)

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

Message

daddysprop247 -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 10:45:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ...If you are sub: do you feel you fit into one of these categories? Or some other category?... submissive is this slave's default state in reaction to the world around her. it isn't earned by another, inspired by a dominant presesence, motivated by a desire to please or obey, or a choice this slave makes. it simply is just the way this slave is. ditto, but beth put it much more clearly and succinctly than i ever could, thank you beth. it bugs me at times the way most folks seem to assume that submissiveness (or dominance either for that matter) must be about motivation or desire of some kind. i am not motivated to submit any more than i am motivated to have brown eyes and brown skin. it just is.

Prinsexx -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 10:48:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka Taxonomy.... I think we all do it to some extent when we sort through our various interlocutors here (or wherever). This type of sub/dom vs. that type of sub/dom (or switch, or top, or bottom, or whatever.) I spend a lot more time classifying and analyzing dominants (like so many butterflies pinned in a box? well, no, but the image is sort of amusing) than I do submissives, given that I am a sub seeking a dom.... but someone I was speaking to recently divided the universe of submissives into three, and caused me thereby to ponder where i fit into others' taxonomies, and/or what possible taxonomies of subs there are. In his view there are 1) subs who are motivated by desire to please, 2) subs who are motivated by a desire to obey, 3) subs who simply react to a dominant presence. Obviously, there is considerable overlap, esp. in a full-blown, ongoing relationship. You can obey because you want to please or attempt to please because you want to obey. You may react to a dominant presence by obeying and/or attempting to please. You may become so keyed to your dominant that you simply react obediently or pleasingly to his presence. But unless I'm mistaken, he was suggesting that, at the core, prior to a relationship, there is generally a tendency in one or the other of these three directions. I wonder.... does this resonate for anyone? If you are sub: do you feel you fit into one of these categories? Or some other category? If you are dom: do you divide up the universe of submissives similarly or in some other way, for the sake of sorting out what it is that you want? Grateful for any/all responses. I would add the category desire to serve: as such motivation can exist with or without an observeable reaction of pleasure from the Dominant. I fluctuate and weave in and out of all 'categories'. And there has been unique categories crated solely by that dominant person. It depemds enitrely upon the Dominant as to what i weave.

porcelaine -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 11:08:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oceanwyndsLoves Hi porcelaine I really like your comment and find it also fitting to who I am. oceanwynds thank you. your owner is most fortunate to have you. porcelaine

NihilusZero -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 11:10:47 AM)
waves to sravaka [:)] The topic is quite poignant. At least at the outset, the subsets seem quite apt. At the core of someone's concept and demeanor towards WIITWD and power dynamic, one of the 3 will apply as the primary motivator. A number of threads I've noticed recently subtly suggest different view/mentalities (for instance, I recall a discussion as to whether the sub/slave's motivation should be to make her D-type happy and some s-types shied away from that idea as some indication that they felt the D-type, not the sub, is wholly responsible for his state of contentment and that trying, as an s-type, to make it any degree of personal responsibility to attempt to instill a happiness in their D-type would be a psychologically undermining if not entirely futile endeavor). Hmm...this may involve more brainstorming a bit later on. Being about to head out the door is not a conducive status to burgeoning thought.

IrishMist -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 11:33:52 AM)
quote: If you are sub: do you feel you fit into one of these categories? Or some other category? No. I am not 'part' of a category.

NihilusZero -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 11:38:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist quote: If you are sub: do you feel you fit into one of these categories? Or some other category? No. I am not 'part' of a category. Category: Human You lose. [8D][;)]

Arpig -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 12:52:26 PM)
quote: Count My girl in there too... one of her 'complaints' about Me is that I don't create enough mess for her to clean up after Me Hey, send her my way...I can make all the mess her heart desires[:D]

RavenMuse -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 1:45:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Count My girl in there too... one of her 'complaints' about Me is that I don't create enough mess for her to clean up after Me Hey, send her my way...I can make all the mess her heart desires[:D] [:D][:D][:D] I could put money on the fact that her ex-dim would put you too shame in that respect, even if you was trying REAL hard! Thats what she was used to, hence now when she is with a human being rather than a pig she finds it a strain sometimes.

IrishMist -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 2:09:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist quote: If you are sub: do you feel you fit into one of these categories? Or some other category? No. I am not 'part' of a category. Category: Human You lose. [8D][;)] That's very true. Unfortunatly, human was not a category that the op took into account.

whiteslavebitch -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 2:12:49 PM)
No, I don't fit neatly into any of those categories. I have a huge overlap with 1 & 2. The desire to please, the desire to obey are both very strong motivators for me.

daintydimples -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 2:28:40 PM)
It's far too simplistic for me. I do think submissives (and most everyone/thing else) can be categorized. But like all human, they do not neatly fall into your categories. Certainly this kind of categorization can have value for the individual. It tends to lose value once you attempt to evangelize (I do use this term loosely).

OrionAndi -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 2:45:58 PM)
Just by reading this thread am I correct to say, that there is no right or wrong answer? All slave's/sub's are different which do things for different reasons. Making it impossible generalize? All very interesting. Andi.

agirl -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 2:48:46 PM)
No, I don't fit into any of those categories. I was motivated by the desire for control. agirl

theRose4U -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 3:37:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RavenMuse quote: ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957 quote: ORIGINAL: ranja oh and i like housework... Oh wow! I thought I was some kind of freak. I love housework TOO! Count My girl in there too... one of her 'complaints' about Me is that I don't create enough mess for her to clean up after Me [:D] Get her a dog with a double coat, Lab, Newfie, St bernard something of that type should keep her busy chasing dust bunnies and pulling knots for a while.

oceanwyndsLoves -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 3:44:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine quote: ORIGINAL: oceanwyndsLoves Hi porcelaine I really like your comment and find it also fitting to who I am. oceanwynds thank you. your owner is most fortunate to have you. porcelaine Thank you porcelain and i am very fortunate that he found me.

sravaka -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 6:20:00 PM)
Hi everyone. Thanks so much for your responses! Much interesting food for thought. I want to stress that the taxonomy I gave in the OP is not mine... just something I was toying with thinking about. In his taxonomy, I relate most closely to #3, the one that no one else seems inclined to. (i feel very lonely) I react to a certain kind of dominant vibe (not very common). I find that I've obeyed before stopping to think about it, and then have to go back and think, wtf was that?? I can choose to try to be pleasing, or choose to obey (and often do)... but that is somewhat different from feeling and responding to that weird, compelling chemistry. Since I do care about my own safety and well-being, I can (and do) intervene and stop myself from acting.... but I can still feel a submissive response arise even when I don't want it to. I definitely think there needs to be another category for beth and prop. There is a purity and completeness to your submissiveness that most of us can't even contemplate. Des, I also found myself relating very much to your notion of emotional transparency. "The submissive hunger is to be the object of an intense and penetrating understanding." I want to be laid bare, completely vulnerable, but also completely truthful. It gets in the way sometimes when the other guy is seeking a pure service or obedience orientation. (I am more inclined toward obedience, but yeah, if I hate something I have a hard time hiding it, even when I'm getting it done.) Where I differ with you is in the possibilities afforded by sadism, whether physical or mental. I find that it can expose things I'd otherwise be trying to hide, and that having those things accepted in the end is potentially rather glorious. I think (here we go, more taxonomy) that there is a self-indulgent sort of sadism that is oblivious to those possibilities, focused only on the suffering itself, and a somewhat (but not completely) more benevolent sadism that wants what's on the other side of the suffering as much as the suffering itself. But I do understand what you mean, at the same time. Unless the circumstances are just right, sadists just piss me off or make me unhappy. porcelaine-- I think I want to be you when I grow up. I love how totally you own your submissiveness-- its meaning to you and its effect on others. Given that I am not primarily service driven, for me too self-control/self-mastery becomes very important. (in a relationship, merely reacting is not generally enough to get by on.) I love the idea of tapping into one's existing submissive tendencies to meet the needs of others, and/or "the larger you called us." Again... many thanks to everyone! I hope there might be more responses.... (:::studiously not looking in NZ's direction:::) edited for typos.

aldompdx -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 6:25:13 PM)
Every person is motivated by the desire to feel fulfilled. The vast majority of people in Western civilization have learned that fulfillment supposedly comes as a bargain of giving to get. The BDSM submissive simply manifests a more extreme or intense condition of that fundamental identity of bargaining. Everybody serves somebody or something. The more healthy manifestation of surrender is release of the notion that the experience of fulfillment/love arises in any place other than where it is felt -- one's very own heart. Gaining awareness of one's ever present source of love, one then obtains the capacity to unconditionally share their own experience of fulfillment. Ultimately, surrender is not to another, but of one's own obstacles to feeling good. The art of living happy in large part is simply getting out of the way.

sravaka -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 7:00:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daintydimples It's far too simplistic for me. I do think submissives (and most everyone/thing else) can be categorized. But like all human, they do not neatly fall into your categories. Certainly this kind of categorization can have value for the individual. It tends to lose value once you attempt to evangelize (I do use this term loosely). I think this is key, dainty, and I'm glad you pointed it out. Anytime we (you, me, the person referred to in the OP, whoever) categorize we do so in a way that speaks to the purposes underlying the impulse to categorize in the first place. It may be to do with seeking-- you want to quickly eliminate people who don't fit, or may fit. But it is seldom entirely disinterested (thus, yes, is largely about value for the individual.) It's sad, in a way, that we end up reduced to (and reducing others to) types.... but I suspect it's inevitable when there's a massive amount of data to sort through.

leadership527 -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 8:42:50 PM)
I think the question I have, sravaka, is why i would need to understand why someone submitted in order to understand compatibility. Not that I've ever gone shopping for subs or ever plan to. But it seems to me there's only two things I'd need to know about some future partner assuming I wanted a submissive... a) Am I relationally compatible with them? b) Does she truly submit, both inside & out. Beyond that, the reasons become important once she has taken my collar. Different motivations would require different leadership styles. But honestly, if I could find both (a) and (b) above, I'd think I'd gotten very very lucky. I don't think I'd bother to split hairs beyond those two things. And, in actuality, long before I had determined whether (a) was true, i would already know everything else I needed to know from direct, detailed inspection rather than surface categorization. To me, these sorts of slicings and dicings are interesting as a way to examine the whole topic. But there are probably an infinite number of such things that are all accurate in limited ways. Each is instructional but none would ever capture an actual human being.

catize -> RE: someone else's taxonomy of subs (9/21/2009 8:46:31 PM)
quote: Every person is motivated by the desire to feel fulfilled. The vast majority of people in Western civilization have learned that fulfillment supposedly comes as a bargain of giving to get. The BDSM submissive simply manifests a more extreme or intense condition of that fundamental identity of bargaining. I agree completely! No one does anything unless they believe they will gain from it. Any “self-less” person we know or can think of has a self driven motive. Even Mother Teresa admitted that her life’s work was to ensure herself a place in heaven.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875