|
aninquisition -> RE: the romance v the reality of d/s (12/30/2009 10:29:52 PM)
|
( Thank you, for those who acknowledged my post and welcomed me to the forums. I noticed...and it was certainly very appreciated.)
Not to bother with quoting, I'll say this in reply to osf : Please elaborate on the concept of being a 'strong' submissive meaning that you think you can have everything you want without sacrifice. Are you suggesting that only those with more passive, meek personalities believe that they can't have everything? Or that they can and those without such personalities cannot? I just don't see the math here. Basically, I don't follow your web thinking. How does 'strong, independent submissive' = 'believes they can have everything they want when they can't'?
Also, at one point, I believe you suggested the self-serving dominant was more interesting? I would have to disagree. Self-serving human beings are a dime a dozen. Boring, predictable, and uninspirational. My hope is that a dominant will one day utilize me to achieve a greater goal, with an intention for benefit beyond merely his own. The weak must be carried by others. Those adequate may carry themselves. Those who are truly strong throw three on their back and walk along without a single complaint. The weak and adequate (also the selfish!) hold no allure for me.
"There is, however, something that strikes me as a contradiction in your definition of a strong, independent submissive. The core of the problem, for me, lies in the fact that your alternative to "neediness" (aka weakness in some circles) is, in fact... neediness. "For many submissives, performing tasks for themselves is far from satisfying. To the point of near self-negligence in some cases." Nods. You've nailed our Achilles heel, all right, as well as our strongest source of joy and energy--when or if things work out. And if they don't? It's usually bad news, in my observation. "Strong" and "Independent" are adjectives of a moment. They apply to a person who, at that time, feels hope for the future, hope that they are going to to get what they want and need. Wrong experiences, frustration, isolation, poor choices, or no choices, all of these can erode away at those traits. Or not. Depends on the person! But it strikes me that someone with that achilles heel, someone with the powerful need to do things for another, someone needy for a dominant's control, will, if they do not get that need met, eventually weaken and falter. Give up.
Time is merciless, at times, and strength conditional.
A submissive who appears strong and independent to others because he or she goes to their job, feeds their pets, takes care of their children or aging parents, peforms whatever other duties or obligations life has thrown their way, tries to make the world a little better and easier for those they encounter, and keeps themselves open to the possibility of meeting, if not a saint, at least a compatible dominant, could inside be a dark mess of seething despair, counting down the hours until they can free themselves from misery. I define myself primarily by my interior landscape and almost never by my actions in physical reality--this may seem queer to some, but I think it's fairly SOP with introverts. By my standards, I am terribly weak and not at all independent according to the ways I measure such terms. My unmet need makes me weak in my eyes. If the need is ever met again, it will make slavishly dependent, even addicted, in my eyes. I find nothing wrong with either condition (weakness or dependence); I do not have bad connotations for either of these terms. I think they are apt descrptions of my core submissive self, far more so than "strong" and "independent" which only apply to the motions I go through in the "walking world" to insure physical survival. As such, I think a wild animal, if put entirely in my shoes, could probably do a better job of it. ;)"
I really, really liked this reply. I had to sit and think about it for a moment before replying.
For one, I don't believe you can necessarily label this as an issue with being an 'independent submissive'. It is certainly a problem for some. But, I see it is a problem often for those on either side of the spectrum. There are dominants who are equally damaged when their right-hand, ego booster, housewife, partner-in-crime, sex doll (or whatever myriad of uses he has come up with for his submissive partner) is taken from them. Do they demonstrate the weakness on the outside? Of course not! They go about their day, strong and productive. But...in the end, they ache for their partner and end up here, as do we. Looking for their other half.
Does that make them dependent? I find some are more dependent than others. Some dominants can handle being alone well -- Others cannot.
I find some dominants truly are only dominants when there are those to submit to them. These dominants are lended confidence in themselves when others demonstrate that they feel they are worthy of power. However, in this case, their very existence as a dominant is far more 'dependent' than my very existence as a submissive personality. Without a dominant, I find many things in leiu to 'serve'. I go out of my way to assist those in my workplace, I attend to the needs of my friends. There are plenty of venues for me to find some outlet (perhaps not entirely adequate, but it is certainly something) for servitude.
On the other hand, it is far harder for a dominant to find an outlet to control. If he has landed himself in some form of managerial position or leadership-style role in a group of friends, then that is somewhat sufficient. But other than that? Aggressive sex can possibly sate the sexual side of the beast, but I find that otherwise, the capability to find outlets for domination is far diminished in comparison.
Does this make the dominant more dependent upon the submissive than the submissive is upon the dominant? ...Not necessarily. I find submissives are far more often whim to their emotions than dominants. They define themselves by their relationships a little more. But I do also think that many dominants are equally dependent on their submissives to maintain that aspect of themselves. It's rather hard to be a king without any subjects -- And I've seen and known many dominants who have fallen into depression and paranoia when faced with the possibility that no one would want to submit themselves to their control.
Once again, I assumed 'independent' meant = financially, physically, etc. Has their own job, is physically and mentally capable of caring for themselves. Doesn't need a caretaker. But thinking on that did make me wonder on another subject... Evaluating 'dependence'... Would you say dependence and weakness go hand in hand? Because, I don't.
The gun is dependent on its wielder. Laying on the ground, it is harmless. But in the hands of the right person, it is extremely deadly. Does this make it weak? Hardly. So even a dependent submissive could be strong. If I were to consider you anything, I would consider you, in the circumstance you described, perhaps dependent (by your definition) but not weak. You would simply be a weapon that doesn't have a chance to shine without a wielder. -Smiles-
|
|
|
|
