RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it.

RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive

Message

Zevar -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/7/2010 9:38:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 i happen to be quite proud to identify with who i am and what i am - submissive and whilst i might not be submissive to everyone all of the time, my nature is to be giving and i tend to put other people first out of prefferance we had a discussion a while ago about how can a slave consider herself a slave if she's without a Master - the responses were mixed, but generally speaking the self identified slaves felt that they were of a slave type simply waiting for their Dominant to come along some time (hopefully soon). so im curious, why is it that some submissives appear to ditch their submissive identity and only identify as sub when with a Dominant. if we accept that subs are not weak, helpless creatures and that in some respects they may even have to be stronger in order to get through life on their own and if we accept that the overt submission expressed with a Dominant is specific to that Dominant and not everyone is given the insight into who we are otherwise - 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. id love to understand this. thank you xx While I am a naturally dominant man that sets forth to master all I do I did consider my experiences with the varying shades of submissiveness. In considering the subject of submissiveness I recalled my now late companion. What I recall while she was living and sharing her life with myself is that her primary strength was her ability to balance her dual nature of submissiveness and dominance. She was an accomplished woman, mother, lover, friend and professional. During her career she was rather directive to those she was a superior of. I did not oppose her ability to gracefully balance her natural innate expression of dominance when needed as her career called for this. Nor did I oppose or marginalize her ability to yield or rather submit when her natural ability to do so was expressed. To do any less would have made it difficult to remain true to her sense of integrity. The time when she did find her need to yield herself was during her time with myself. It was in those times that her duality of submissiveness and dominance brought forth a most natural completion within her that was beautiful to witness. In my presence she yielded an aspect of herself that complimented her whole self which indeed did include her ability to equalize my dominant nature in all ways. Actually I believe there are women that are as this and then there are those who are more inclined to express a sense of submission that melds into servitude. I have known both examples illustrated. One does not seem more equally female than other. Rather both are examples of wholly complete females naturally expressing in a manner that reflect silhouettes of womanhood.

LafayetteLady -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/7/2010 9:54:34 PM)
I see all these words....easy going, deference, serving, etc. I dont' see them the same as being submissive necessarily. Now, because I identify as "switch" maybe I'm completely the wrong one to even think of answering this question, but.... I am mostly submissive in my relationships. Recently, I have started to really think about the whole thing in terms of what I want, need and would choose to deal with. Then tonight I was sending an email to a friend and was talking about how even though I really don't have the time or the energy to give to a friend who really does need my help with a legal issue, I won't not help her because she needs it. So I began to think that maybe part of my "submissive" nature is the inability to say "no" to people who need my "dominant" nature to help them. I don't even know at this moment if that makes any sense. I've lived alone for a long time. I've been in long term relationships that were very important to me, but we didn't live together for a multitude of reasons. In my home, I am the one in charge. I pay the bills, I make the rules, decide what is and is not acceptable. When I was working, I was very in control of what was going on. I had to be, because people's lives were hinged on how well I could do my job. All in all, I think trying to define dominance or submission in terms of our everyday lives in the end is counter-productive. Because in the end, we are all different and handle things differently. For those of us who aren't currently in a relationship, we still need to take care of life. There is no one to tell us how to take care of it or when to do it, we need to make those decisions for ourselves. Can everyone function in those situations? Based on some of the threads I see around here, no everyone can't. But I tend to feel sorry for those who need someone else to micromanage their lives, who can't rely on themselves to make decisions. Rather than trying to figure it all out though, I have found that life is much happier and easier if I just accept that I am who I am without trying to question it. Of course, I'm pretty happy with who I am, so that can make a difference.

leadership527 -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/7/2010 10:18:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 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. My opinion? I think the answer is that "we" have definitely NOT accepted the fact that submission has nothing to do with weakness and dominance has nothing to do with strength. In short, I think the vast majority of folks in the BDSM community buy into the BDSM norms. I see it ALL the time on Collarme. All you need to do is ignore the mandatory PC statements and read between the lines a bit. Then again, I also think it's true that all human behaviors... submission included... require context. And some people have more specific contexts than others.

BitaTruble -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/7/2010 11:45:51 PM)
I'm a control freak who caves to power greater than my own. One of the many flaws which I have (mostly) conquered was tempering my tendency to try to control everyone and everything and let my friends and family make their own choices, their own mistakes and their own decisions. I've learned to (mostly) shut the hell up, bite my tongue and butt out unless I'm specifically asked for my opinion.

lally2 -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/8/2010 12:54:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 wow, thanks guys - lots to take in - i suppose in the end i dont compartmentalise the variables in my life and being of a submissive type i consider to be just one other aspect of me, along with being a mother, podiatrist etc., - no one thing defines but it all gets thrown into the mix - end result me. i completely agree that being submissive isnt an identity as such, though i identify as being of a submissive type - i just wrongly assumed that people recognised their orientation in a more fluid, its one part of the whole, type of thing. i understand this much better and thank you for sharing. I do not think people compartmentalize it... at least that is not what I am reading... I am a mother all of the time, but I only feel "motherly" towards certain people... I am a daughter all of the time, but my mom is the only person I feel "daughterly" towards... if I were to lose my mother tomorrow, I would still know what it was to feel "daughterly", although I would not feel daughterly towards another woman, most likely ever again... I think you are over analyzing what people are saying..... we all have these aspects of ourselves, relationships with others, they are fluid, those feelings we associate with some people, we do not feel every moment of every day... I am not always feeling "hetrosexual". I am het, but I am not "feeling" that way, or thinking about it....If you asked people "How do you act out and relate to and feel about your hetrosexual orientation, you would get the same sort of diverse answers that you received on this topic... good points - i have to say i dont feel those things either, we live in our skin and have done for years and whatever and whoever we are interweaves. so i dont feel submissive anymore than i feel daughterly or mothely either - its just aspects of who i am as a whole. at certain moment in the day depending on externals i feel the role that im in, be it mother, daughter, whatever - im just saying that interwoven amongst that is the realisation that whilst im not feeling submissive, motherly or daughterly i am all of those things. but i also clearly see what you are saying.

juliaoceania -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/8/2010 7:50:48 AM)
quote: so i dont feel submissive anymore than i feel daughterly or mothely either - its just aspects of who i am as a whole. I think that was my point... we do not go around thinking about these things in isolation from each other most of the time. I do not sit down and think "Wow, I feel motherly" or "when I talk to my mother I feel like a daughter". If someone asks, lets say on an internet forum, well yes, I can logically isolate those times I feel submissive and say "When I am with this person I feel more of myself, I can be who I am, and that person is submissive" I basically think we are saying the same thing.. but this thread asks us to contemplate, and take that part of ourselves we label "submissive" and consider it as its own characteristic in isolation from everything else we are.

porcelaine -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/8/2010 11:17:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 so im curious, why is it that some submissives appear to ditch their submissive identity and only identify as sub when with a Dominant. if we accept that subs are not weak, helpless creatures and that in some respects they may even have to be stronger in order to get through life on their own and if we accept that the overt submission expressed with a Dominant is specific to that Dominant and not everyone is given the insight into who we are otherwise - 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. lally, I yield to persons in positions of authority as required by societal law and defer to my superiors (in some regard) in the workplace. However, aside from the situations mentioned, I have no desire to conduct myself submissively in any way. I will always take the lead whenever possible. Whether it's an extension of position through additional responsibility, leadership roles held in organizations, or spearheading an initiative, that's merely my wiring. I like being in control and I'm very good at it. I enjoy directing others and executing a plan. I like teaching and providing guidance. While it's possible to find elements of submission in the acts mentioned where I'm engaging for the greater good, my behavior doesn't suggest a denial of my innate submissiveness, but does reflect it exists in specific contexts that don't permeate my being. Dominance is a natural phenomenon, much like breathing. Slavery was a bigger challenge. I'm going against the grain of my makeup when placed in that position. However, the very things that allow me to excel when I'm at the helm have served me well on the kneel. Their application differs, but the tools are utilized nonetheless. ~porcelaine

divi -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/8/2010 12:57:16 PM)
I have a dominant personality. But to my certain someone I'm extremely submissive. He wouldn't want me any other way.

lally2 -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/9/2010 1:09:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady I see all these words....easy going, deference, serving, etc. I dont' see them the same as being submissive necessarily. actually niether do i necessarily - i have a vanilla friend who will go out of her way to be helpful and kind, but she isnt sub - at least, she hasnt learnt to hone those elements in her, though she did tell me about a vaguely Ds relationship she had once and she clearly enjoyed the memory. i sometimes think that the element of D or s is in most people but society has crimped their acceptance of themselves. i would say that over time i have gone from being vaguely vanilla to what i am now, fully accepting of who i am because of the relationships ive had, what ive learnt about myself and how i now conduct myself and handle the elements in me that before used to allow people to walk all over me and basically take the piss, i have learnt to be strong entirely because i have learnt to understand myself and how i tick. recognising the elements and why they are a function of me makes it easier to get through my day. my friend struggles with the conflict of being too giving by snatching back what she gives because she needs to feel in control of herself and she doesnt know how else to do it other than take her giving back when she feels it compromises her. thats how i used to be. but i have accepted how i am and why i am and now i can be me without the conflict of giving and feeling taken - which is why i recognise that i am a submissive all of the time throughout my day with or without a Dominant - i see and feel the diference of how i used to be and how i am now as tangible and actually considerably stronger and more powerful than i ever was before. All in all, I think trying to define dominance or submission in terms of our everyday lives in the end is counter-productive. Because in the end, we are all different and handle things differently. For those of us who aren't currently in a relationship, we still need to take care of life. There is no one to tell us how to take care of it or when to do it, we need to make those decisions for ourselves. Can everyone function in those situations? Based on some of the threads I see around here, no everyone can't. But I tend to feel sorry for those who need someone else to micromanage their lives, who can't rely on themselves to make decisions. i cant speak for them, but i can say that for myself i find myself exhausting and depressing sometimes [:D] - i have a hectic life and my organisational skills stink - but i get through. for ages ive known that i needed to get proactive about a situation and leave, set myself up somewhere else all i needed was that little push i couldnt give myself, it was easier to stay with the rotten situation and not put my patients through the irritation of having to change their routine with me. my D gave me that little push i needed. it isnt that i cant face the world on my own, its just that im a whole lot braver when theres someone behind me seeing things clearly and telling me its ok. Rather than trying to figure it all out though, I have found that life is much happier and easier if I just accept that I am who I am without trying to question it. Of course, I'm pretty happy with who I am, so that can make a difference. to be honest i have figured myself out and i am comfortable going through life knowing that my personality is such that its ok to be me now, i am in a stronger position because i have learnt that i can give totally and its ok to do that, i can give up control and the world around me doesnt collapse - learning this through submission has made me stronger and braver - so in many ways i do submit myself to the day and the people around me because i can, mindfully and it in no way compromises me because i understand where its coming from now. it isnt about being taken its about me giving because im more comfortable in the giving role. im not saying this to sound big headed at all - not in the least - its just that when i use the lable submissive to describe me as a personality type i know that it is an accurate description of me and that never changes, in or out of a relationship. its just that im not submissive to everyone around me and i dont drop to my knees at every whim and order from a stranger. i am strong, much stronger purely because i have learnt what being a submissive is and i am in control of that now.

lally2 -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/9/2010 1:16:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Then again, I also think it's true that all human behaviors... submission included... require context. And some people have more specific contexts than others. what if the context is internal and doesnt necessarily need the external context to continue being what it is. youve said many times that carol is a submissive in all aspects of her world and not just in context to you - knowing her as you do, if you were suddenly beamed up by scotty, would she continue being who she is or would she change once outside of youre context.

leadership527 -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/9/2010 11:07:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 youve said many times that carol is a submissive in all aspects of her world and not just in context to you - knowing her as you do, if you were suddenly beamed up by scotty, would she continue being who she is or would she change once outside of youre context. Even Carol, when pushed far enough, can get dominant. What I have said of Carol is that her default mental state is that of submissive and she reflexively submits to pretty much the world at large. But given enough provocation, she can be dominant. So even she has contexts in which she adopts a dominant viewpoint. Carol's context for submission is pretty broad but it is still finite. Humans, real humans, are complex, neh?

lally2 -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/9/2010 12:09:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 youve said many times that carol is a submissive in all aspects of her world and not just in context to you - knowing her as you do, if you were suddenly beamed up by scotty, would she continue being who she is or would she change once outside of youre context. Even Carol, when pushed far enough, can get dominant. What I have said of Carol is that her default mental state is that of submissive and she reflexively submits to pretty much the world at large. But given enough provocation, she can be dominant. So even she has contexts in which she adopts a dominant viewpoint. Carol's context for submission is pretty broad but it is still finite. Humans, real humans, are complex, neh? flagrant dodging!! [:D] being capable of standing up for youreself isnt about being dominant, holding youre own in the pushy shovey world isnt about being dominant. expecting to be paid the money i earned the other day wasnt me being dominant, it was me expecting to be paid for what i earned. this is a double standard - we can be considered to be 'dominant' in the real world and feel proud but we cant be considered submissive in the real world and feel proud, why is that -

wandersalone -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/9/2010 3:20:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 i completely agree that being submissive isn't an identity as such, though i identify as being of a submissive type - i just wrongly assumed that people recognised their orientation in a more fluid, its one part of the whole, type of thing. If I can respond to the last part of your quote above Lally.... I know that for me I love being in D/s relationships, it is the only time where I truly feel relationship wise that I can be myself however I also know that I feel that strong need to submit to so few men that it can and has been years at times in between having that connection. My desire to submit really is so specific to a person that after each relationship ending I have no idea if I will feel it again. Do I still hope and long to feel that D/s connection again...yes I don't have a submissive personality or nature and if anything am the opposite and this shows in my work and all of my other relationships In between meeting these dominants who evoke my submission I consider myself simply to be me, a woman who is living her life and I tend to not place too many labels on myself where possible. [:)]

trueshadow -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/9/2010 3:53:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hopelesslyInvo 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. I consider myself a total and complete slave, just in search of a Domme to serve. Having a mental bent isn't like losing a physical part of oneself.

lally2 -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/9/2010 4:00:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wandersalone quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 i completely agree that being submissive isn't an identity as such, though i identify as being of a submissive type - i just wrongly assumed that people recognised their orientation in a more fluid, its one part of the whole, type of thing. If I can respond to the last part of your quote above Lally.... I know that for me I love being in D/s relationships, it is the only time where I truly feel relationship wise that I can be myself however I also know that I feel that strong need to submit to so few men that it can and has been years at times in between having that connection. My desire to submit really is so specific to a person that after each relationship ending I have no idea if I will feel it again. Do I still hope and long to feel that D/s connection again...yes I don't have a submissive personality or nature and if anything am the opposite and this shows in my work and all of my other relationships In between meeting these dominants who evoke my submission I consider myself simply to be me, a woman who is living her life and I tend to not place too many labels on myself where possible. [:)] thank you wanders - what youve said there is clearly echoed through the thread - and i understand what you mean about 'will i ever do that again or feel that again' - ive gone for long periods between relationships for probably the same reason - like you say, its the only time you can be youreself 'relationship wise' - its letting that element fly. i honestly dont see it as a label, any more than being a woman is a label - but i see what you mean, you are who you are and being submissive is a response rather than an attitude. xx

CaringandReal -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/9/2010 4:06:59 PM)
I'm a submissive through and through, but capable of doing what I have to do to "pass" in a vanilla world. I don't do it primarily out of fear (loss of job/reputation/etc.) I do it because I don't like making others uncomfortable and flaunting a psychosexual orientation in their faces, particularly one they do not share or understand well, is doing precisely that even if sexual terms are never mentioned--most people can sense the psychology, unless you hide it, and do not respond well to it. I don't like doing that to others, I think it is rude. So I act the roles required of me in order to blend in--up to a point. I will mentor in the workplace. But I avoid management or anything that would give me control over others' lives like the plague. I have left gigs that wanted me to go in that direction. This means there's a limit to how sucessful I can become, but luckily or not, I could care less about that. :) The nature of my work tends to put me in the role of the lone specialist with half a dozen bosses, so I don't have to face the management toll of doom very often, but when places grow rapidly, that role is sometimes thrust upon you. And when it is offered me, I refuse, even if it requires uncertainty and sacrifice (losing a position) to do so.

wandersalone -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/9/2010 4:14:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 i honestly dont see it as a label, any more than being a woman is a label - but i see what you mean, you are who you are and being submissive is a response rather than an attitude. xx bingo [:)] I actually wrote something similar in an email to my d type last night

lally2 -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/9/2010 4:50:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CaringandReal I'm a submissive through and through, but capable of doing what I have to do to "pass" in a vanilla world. I don't do it primarily out of fear (loss of job/reputation/etc.) I do it because I don't like making others uncomfortable and flaunting a psychosexual orientation in their faces, particularly one they do not share or understand well, is doing precisely that even if sexual terms are never mentioned--most people can sense the psychology, unless you hide it, and do not respond well to it. I don't like doing that to others, I think it is rude. So I act the roles required of me in order to blend in--up to a point. I will mentor in the workplace. But I avoid management or anything that would give me control over others' lives like the plague. I have left gigs that wanted me to go in that direction. This means there's a limit to how sucessful I can become, but luckily or not, I could care less about that. :) The nature of my work tends to put me in the role of the lone specialist with half a dozen bosses, so I don't have to face the management toll of doom very often, but when places grow rapidly, that role is sometimes thrust upon you. And when it is offered me, I refuse, even if it requires uncertainty and sacrifice (losing a position) to do so. ah! hello!! [:D] im understanding the guys who say submission is a response to one specific person - because in a sense i am the same, i dont submit to the world and like you say up there, i dont wish to make people uncomfortable - often ive found that being too amenable often causes discomfort, people think youre after something - [&:] thanks for posting i was begining to feel like a freak of nature or something [:D]

lally2 -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/9/2010 4:52:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wandersalone quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 i honestly dont see it as a label, any more than being a woman is a label - but i see what you mean, you are who you are and being submissive is a response rather than an attitude. xx bingo [:)] I actually wrote something similar in an email to my d type last night well, everyones been very patient - dimbo, thick head here can take a while to grasp a thing - [&o] - but im abreast now [:D]

hopelesslyInvo -> RE: so youre not a submissive then, or you are, which is it. (7/9/2010 6:29:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: trueshadow quote: ORIGINAL: hopelesslyInvo 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. I consider myself a total and complete slave, just in search of a Domme to serve. Having a mental bent isn't like losing a physical part of oneself. if i didn't already know that i'm usually expecting too much of people when i present more than 4 sentences to read, i would be in complete shock and horror that someone didn't read my post in its entirety, if at all; especially before responding to it. since i know better, thank you for agreeing with me; despite the fact that you didn't read far enough to know that you're disagreeing with the same thing i do. i am glad at least that you kept my meaning in context, as many people won't even go through that much trouble~ though it eluded you that the point of making that claim was to later attest to why it was invalid, and that people were justified and not without reason in calling themselves a slave, even without an owner; i'm curious how the words 'total' and 'complete' make their way in your description when you're at best a 50% partially complete slave due to the lack of said owner? if you were total and complete you'd either have one or not need one, both of which you've stated to both be false, so we'd only have one other option which is 'being a total and complete slave means seeking an owner without ever actually finding them'. anyway the point was that 'how people identity themselves' is holding more water in describing their aspirations than their 'literal state of being', and that what people aspire to become is what we weigh on when looking for somebody. for example: you want a domme, but you of course don't want a domme who aspires to become a slave do you? no, you want one who aspires to continue being a domme if not a "better" one than she already is. literally, we are nothing more than men and women looking for happiness based on our perceptions, we hope to find it by means of relations with one another that we hope to see come to fruition though the use of a wide area network of computers with access to a series of code displayed among the world wide web. figuratively however, you want to be a slave. so that is what we call you. to clarify the point, since it's more likely to be noticed this time around. an amputee is a person who has had- a slave is a person who is- however with someone such as an artist it can simply be said that they are... someone who professes to be or is familiarized; by close association, study, or experience- see where this is going?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875