hopelesslyInvo
Posts: 522
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: the future
Status: offline
|
quote:
so im curious, why is it that some submissives appear to ditch their submissive identity and only identify as sub when with a Dominant.
why is it that to say we have a submissive nature or a submissive personality or that we are submissves living outside of a Ds dynamic makes people twitch and switch about and try to find some other explanation for themselves.
i always just attribute the beginning of this to the difference between the two common counterparts,
being submissive and acting submissive
naturally submissive and a bottom
submissive in nature and submissive in role
personality trait and something you've chosen to be
one is a description of the person, like good or bad
one is a title or role, such as cop
but rather than the obvious good cop/bad cop, people can't seem to figure which hole the square peg goes into and come into agreement.
to me it seems extremely apparent that there are simply submissives [the role] who may or may not be naturally submissive [the personality trait].
also there are many people claim to only feel certain ways in response to their environment, such as the common one we hear; "i'm a badass in the office, but a pushover at home". i don't wholeheartedly believe that, but i would need to be a bigger skeptic to assume that so many people are outright lying.
it seems plausible since in my own life i notice a slight change in instinct when acting competitively, though no change in my personality.
i tend to just see it as general life reflecting who they are, and personal life reflecting what they enjoy.
they're all called dynamics, but this one fits the bill perhaps best of all; anyone can choose to submit to something/someone else when that choice is presented, and a lot of dominants like having someone submit to them who wouldn't do so for anyone else.
imagine a lion bowing to a bunny, and you'll see why it makes such an impression.
-
the way i would explain the good cop/bad cop scenario...
some choose to submit and play their part; not actually possessing a submissive personality at all. they will take on the role either because it pleases them or because it is a means to please someone else. this is what i generally refer to as an alpha sub, though with all bdsm terms; definition varies.
some are simply submissive in their very nature, though the act of submission would again be a choice. they're not in any way said to be driven by submission, but they have a personality they cannot simply switch off during their dealings and interactions with life. the differences between the two are most visible during confrontation. this is what i generally refer to as a beta sub.
the last kind i classify are these chameleons we hear about. they remind me of super heroes both because i have trouble in believing they really exist, and because they always have some achilles heel weakness that triggers their submission when they would otherwise be normal or opposed to submission. generally it's the "when i'm around ________ person; they're my kryptonite", that we hear. generally i look at at these as being alphas who simply have a different outlook on their social interactions than i do, thus detailing the habits of their life differently. more than anything, if someone where to classify their personality, surely it could only be described as fickle.
coming this far and likely setting myself up for being lambasted by 'twue' people, i should probably state a few other things.
such as nowhere is it ever suggested that submission has anything to do with an inherent 'enjoyment to please others', that's purely people adding in their own connotation.
also it seems most people consider alpha to merely mean primary, and beta to mean supplemental, so that outlook might not translate well with what i write, and i use the term as they are used in regards to personality; such as you'd find in a group of animals.
obviously any of these have the option to simply be a 'bottom', but from my observation it's nearly one sided as to which type it this occurs with; the other has its own set of stereotypes to work through depending on genders.
now, as to why submissives bounce back and forth between what they say they are, that deals with this in the end...
quote:
we had a discussion a while ago about how can a slave consider herself a slave if she's without a Master
i can't say why people make their choices for certain, or why they don't feel comfortable in just being honest and descriptive. though i'm often bothered at times by this distinction between sub and slave.
my view on it is the same as the sub for the most part; being a "slave" is a role you take on, not a personality, not a nature; slavery is a man-made concept.
you can't be a slave without an owner anymore than you can be an amputee without having lost at least one limb.
you can 'want' to be a slave, just as you could want to be an astronaut; and likewise, as i mentioned with being a submissive, anyone can be a slave.
it doesn't take the non existing slave 'personality' or 'nature' to be one; a submissive could be one, an alpha could be one, even a 'master' could be one.
like with beta/alpha, sub/slave/bottom, people get hung up on terms and meanings; often siding with fantasy over reality, or making whatever word sounds better mean what they want.
some people see slavery as pure roleplay, some see submission as wannabe slaves, or think that all subs are bottoms; seeing slaves as being what others views subs to be.
to answer both questions as best as i can at once...
people both have problems with mixing fantasty and roleplay with reality, as well as jumbling literal with interpretive definitions.
getting hung up on these words, as well as how everyone else wants to twist their meaning to be, causes people to constantly feel like they have to shift around the method in which they describe and present themselves, because of thousands of people wanting exactly the same thing are each calling it something different.
it's like soccer and football, but taken to a much higher level of stupidity.
in the end i validate what people call themselves by their aspirations or intents.
if only submissive people could say they want to have the submissive role in a relationship, what does that say for the others?
only a male with a masters degree, and only women who sleep with married men can seek out subs or slaves? only a person involved in illegal kidnapping and forced servitude who have escaped their former owners can list themselves as a slave?
that doesn't make a damn bit of sense.
imagine a person that had a fairly neutral personality, neither being overly meek, humble, timid, or quick to go along with things, but also not very controlling, defiant, aggressive or assertive; and we'll say this person has taken an interest in bdsm and wants to be the submissive of someone in a relationship.
if they're not inherently submissive, but don't want to be a switch, mistress, master, or slave, are we supposed to say that a person into bdsm is... vanilla? purely nonsensical.
we describe ourselves by our aspirations. it's not the amputee we should compare people to when someone says they're a slave; you compare them to something like an artist.
as long as a person creates art, they're justified in saying they're an artist.
as long as a person possess the desire to have a relationship with another where they've given as much say and control as humanly possible to another person, they're justified in calling themselves a slave.
as long a person desires to control the life of another person in a relationship, they're as well free to label themselves as to what they aspire to be; a master.
the problem is that we've completely trampled and ruined the meaning of so many words, that we're in a constantly changing dance that varies on a case by case basis. it's no surprise that people who have been around a while often try to shed these labels to avoid it; but it only helps so much when we have the delusional people living in fantasy preaching about "true" slaves, "true" masters, and so on.
we're all just doing the waltz, and unfortunately some people have no rhythm.
< Message edited by hopelesslyInvo -- 7/6/2010 7:28:54 PM >
_____________________________
great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
|
RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which i... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread