|
CaringandReal -> RE: inspired submission (12/2/2009 5:06:20 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss
Did I say this already? It's been dancing around in my head either way.
Call it chemistry, attraction, love, inspiration... je ne sais quoi.... I lean a certain way, but without the je ne sais quoi, my leaning is not going to go to falling. It's how I'm built. I need the interaction. Others don't? Cool. But me? I'm good with the word "inspiration". It makes me all warm and gooey.
Now see with this, it makes me think that people are talking about two different concepts.
Inspiration as love? That I can dig. Chemistry? Yup absolutely - I can dig that too. But to say that they need someone to inspire submission, is alien to me - it's similar (to me) to saying 'I need someone to inspire me to be happy' - again that is alien to me. It would be interesting to see which way people are using 'inspiration'. I really am seeing it coming across as a condition of how someone can be, rather than an emotion(like sunshine exuded)?
the.dark.
Indeed, the posters to the thread do seem to be talking about two different topics, maybe three or four. A problem with this thread seems to be the old classic bugaboo that comes up whenever a group of unlike people try to communicate with each other. Certain words, like "inspiration" maybe, mean very different things to to different people. "I need to feel inspired by my dominant," could have a very different meaning to the writer than to the reader but we just assume we're all talking about the same thing. So reader is "shocked" by what they think writer said, not by what writer actually said. I'm sure several hundred books have been written on this subject already by linguists, so I'll stop belaboring the point. If only we asked each other more questions...
Well, I can start. You seem to be saying that you do not need someone to inspire submission. I agree--in a sense. I think there is enough low-level immersive stimulation and interaction going on in our culture at all times that that one can maintain a feeling of submissiveness for years without having any direct contact with a dominant. We can get our submissive "jollies' if not from internet porn, then from discussion boards, chat rooms, munches, movies, reading, game playing, and often vanilla socializing.
But what if you were in solitary confinement, say an all white padded room. All your physical needs were taken care of, but you never had any contact with other human beings. Nor did you have any cultural stimulation: no music, no tv or dvds or radio, no magazines or books. No pets. Of course no interaction via a PC. No direct human contact either. No speech with others. Food "appeard" in a shelf in the wall. Your attempts to get someone to pay attention to you were ignored. You had nothing to kill yourself with or otherwise attract attention. And this went on for years. Would you feel submissive in that situation? Could you? For how long? For that matter, could you feel happy?
Just how exactly do you submit in a total vacuum with no responses or feedback? We're social animals, we're trained from childhood to be that way and we have strong instincts that make us grouping creatures. Take away our groups, our contexts, and I would expect it would be hard to maintain much of our sense of ourselves, much of our personality, at least during the time we were isolated. Like most social behavior submission and dominance has a feedback loop, even when it's indirect (that is, brought about by cultural stimulii, not real people). For most people, if you cut the feedback entirely, feelings/behavior would shrivel. A few people with very strong minds might be able to maintain this sense in the white padded room with just their own bodies and their memories of what submission was like. But as time passed, I expect it would take a lot of mental exercise and vigilence to do so, things that most people are not that well trained in.
|
|
|
|
