quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

A submissive has two kinds of relationships: with his or her Dom/me (or a prospective Dom/me), and with everyone else.

If a sub seems strong to me and he's/she's not mine, then I have no cause to complain as long as he/she is mannerly.  If my own sub is too strong for my liking, or too weak for that matter, it's my responsibility to correct the course.

Either way, a complaint about a strong sub likely indicates more about the complainer than the sub.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sirsholly

Whenever i read a profile that states "I am a STRONG submissive" my first thought is it translates to "We are going to do things MY way."

I do not want to be around passive doormats, but at the same time there is a huge red flag when one feels the need to vocalize their strength.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

I believe strength can be an asset. Perhaps they have a strength of character, an inner core of steel that creates the proper mind set which makes them determined to be the best submissive to their dominant.

My opinion is along these lines, with strong = emotionally healthy and able to handle life's challenges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

what is your initial thought when someone says s/he's a "strong submissive?"
why, do you think, it's thought that "submissive" and "strong" are automatically mutually exclusive?

quote:

do you think the idea that submissve =/= strong is more common among those who haven't figured out how this all works out with their ideas on feminism? to me, and the thoughtful person i was yammering with, feminism is about the right to self-fulfillment, not necessarily being powerful in one particular way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

what is your initial thought when someone says s/he's a "strong submissive?"

If meant in a positive light, that the submissive has grit or fortitude or is highly capable and competent in the world-at-large. 
i suspect it is a response to those people who interact with s-types as incapable and incompetent first and foremost because they are submissive not because they are are actually incapable and incompetent.  A reactionary response to people who treat these words as interchangeable.

why, do you think, it's thought that "submissive" and "strong" are automatically mutually exclusive?

This question hints at, to me, the people who think this are thinking of the word "strong" as a negative quality for a submissive or that "submissive" itself is an inherently negative quality.

One answer: Sometimes people have a difficult time walking in someone else's shoes.  If they would find that acting in a submissive manner would be a "weak" behavior for them, for their personality, they can't see that it wouldn't be a show of weakness for someone else.  Also there is a confusion between "passive", "submissive" and "weak" going on here that has more to do with mainstream thinking on what is a desirable personality and how to express it in a desirable way.  Involving oneself in D/s may require a paradigm shift in order not to think of the s-counterparts as lesser, somehow repugnant, beings for such mindsets.


do you think the idea that submissve =/= strong is more common among those who haven't figured out how this all works out with their ideas on feminism?

i have no way to verify that.  i am looking at this from a non-gender-based perspective, by the way, if what your talking about here is specifically interactions between male D's and female s's by bringing up Feminism and not Feminism as a concept of societal equality for all people. 

i will say that claiming that "submissive" never equates to "strength" has, on more than one occasion, lead me to think the person hasn't fully thought out the differences between weakness, passivity, submission, societal norms and their own way of being in the world as the right, better or good way.  Same for the person who points to strength as a excuse for the impolitic behaviors you mentioned. 

If your talking in terms of male D's and female s's, it's possible that the person (whether male or female) hasn't fully thought through their own misogynistic stereotypes or come to a healthy, accepting mindset about the position of submission.  Being a follower is not welcomed in our society--to have them is, but to be one inherently or by choice is considered an unacceptable ambition or quality, it's a position to "rise above" in some manner.  Some people struggle with shifting their understanding away from what our culture claims is a positive state and redefining these personality characteristics in a way that allows respect for submissives as a group.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lizi

quote:

ORIGINAL: sirsholly

Whenever i read a profile that states "I am a STRONG submissive" my first thought is it translates to "We are going to do things MY way."

I do not want to be around passive doormats, but at the same time there is a huge red flag when one feels the need to vocalize their strength.

I definitely agree with the underlined above. I was on a military base with my son once as he was showing me around and he made a comment that has always stuck with me. We were talking about the men on that base who were in Special Forces. He said that the guy who said he was a cook was probably SF, and the one who said he was SF was probably a cook. It's so true. The people who have themselves together and are strong, perceptive, steadfast, and dedicated don't seem to feel a need to advertise it. This can be someone of any orientation. You generally don't have to stand up and shout about a particular quality of yours unless you aren't too sure about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FukinTroll

From the chest thumping male perspective...

A woman in charge of her own life, responsible, assertive = a controlling bitch.
A woman who knows who she is = insufferable bitch.
A woman who has standards and will not settle for less = a fukin bitch from hell.
Conversely a woman who does not fit in the above is a perfect woman.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: FukinTroll

From the chest thumping male perspective...

A woman in charge of her own life, responsible, assertive = a controlling bitch.
A woman who knows who she is = insufferable bitch.
A woman who has standards and will not settle for less = a fukin bitch from hell.
Conversely a woman who does not fit in the above is a perfect woman.

My discussions with the opposite sex within the community and outside of it has yielded a similar response. While they didn't disparage the behavior or view it as threatening. Each articulated a desire not to have it rammed down their throats.

Namaste,

~porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep
what is your initial thought when someone says s/he's a "strong submissive?"

Without knowing anything more about the person or their situation, my reaction to that news would probably be positive. For me, "strong" is good, in general. In reality, though, much more would probably depend on *how* they said it.

why, do you think, it's thought that "submissive" and "strong" are automatically mutually exclusive?

They aren't, by my definitions of the terms. Why do other people think that? i dunno, do they? "Strong" and "submissive" are completely in the eye of the beholder. i wouldn't want to submit to anyone who wanted me to totally change my personality, but i would expect slight corrections of behavior or attitude.

personally i've met a lot of people who use "strong submissive" as a cover for otherwise unpleasant behavior. they're "opinionated" which usually means sticking their noses where they don't belong, "sassy" which usually means bitchy, etc etc. =p

i'm not sure that being opinionated, nosy, sassy, or even bitchy constitutes unpleasant behavior, either. Those terms, like "strong" and "submissive", only mean something to a particular person and in a particular context. My own behavior varies considerably from one situation to the next. And i have a high tolerance for people who behave differently than i do.

on the other hand i've met really thoughtful, opinionated people, or sassy s-types who were cute, cheeky, and a joy to be around, who didn't feel the need to preface everything they do with "well i'm strong."

But what does that have to do with submission? You probably meet a lot of people in general who are opinionated, sassy, cute, cheeky, and a joy to be around who don't have to preface everything they do with, "well, i'm strong". It would seem like protesting too much if a person said that all the time, regardless of orientation.

do you think the idea that submissve =/= strong is more common among those who haven't figured out how this all works out with their ideas on feminism?

No. i think that anyone who walks around saying "i'm strong, i'm strong, i'm strong" in the way that you describe is compensating for *something*. But i also think that one man's "bitch" is another man's "spunky fireball", and i don't have much of an opinion about it if it works for *them*.

to me, and the thoughtful person i was yammering with, feminism is about the right to self-fulfillment, not necessarily being powerful in one particular way.

And you are totally entitled to define it that way. The only catch is that everyone else is just as entitled to define the term for themselves. Maybe for some people, the right to self fulfillment necessarily *does* mean being powerful in one particular way.

quote:

And you are totally entitled to define it that way. The only catch is that everyone else is entitled to define it *their* own way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

not to illustrate that there's some nebulous relationship between being sub and being cute