RE: too compliant?

RE: too compliant? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Homestead -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 8:22:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: Homestead Compliance comes from knowing what is being complied with,and often why. No one gets to an M/s situation without a pretty deep knowledge of what makes thier partners tick. We also tend to test each other's boundaries quite a bit in the beginning. A sub will see just how much she can get away with,and how her thoughts and feelings will be recieved. She knows that her ultimate safety lies in acceptance of her core. Sadly, this is not always true. I have noticed many times when a sub will be single one week and owned and "deeply" committed the next to someone she has met in the interim and know very little about what makes them tick. I also think that while there are those who will do the exercise in boundary testing...there are just as many who will prefer open communication as to what the boundaries are and abide by them. People are not consistent entities that one can program and set in motion. I can't recall how many times I have had "agreements" with subs who later found that they had bitten off far more than they could actually chew. And we had to go back and renegotiate. This tends to destroy a Dom's trust in a sub having reasonable knowledge of her actual abilities after a time. So the testing thing still holds true-but do it with yourself first-not the other. As far as velcro collars, I avoid that sort. Then again, cynic that I am, I always notice the rose colored glasses right off. My cynicism is for a reason, it destroys fantasies I know simply cannot be realized. I have better things to do, than waste my time with the clueless.

Homestead -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 8:25:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie quote: ORIGINAL: Homestead Another common fallacy is the thought that you can "completely" do something with anyone. I try to stay away from the absolutist mindset these days. An obsession with power is one of the surest ways not to have any. You believe one can not completely submit to another? I thought Being Chewsie wonderfully answered how you can, in her post in the Autonomy thread. I'm not going to play puffing up games over who is the most compliant slave. I see that as just as bad as Dominants chest beating over it. There is no absolute.

ownedgirlie -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 8:28:13 AM)
My question was not about a comparison in compliancy. It was asking if you truly believe one can not completely submit. You answered it. Thank you.

Homestead -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 8:30:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie My question was not about a comparison in compliancy. It was asking if you truly believe one can not completely submit. You answered it. Thank you. I do not believe that anyone can completely submit to anything besides death. But they can harbor a FANTASY that they can. I see it quite often here.[;)]

Sunshine119 -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 8:32:15 AM)
*fast reply to no one specifically*** Oh Lawd! I just became a zillion times happier with the Dominant who has me! We argue about politics (he is an arch conservative, I'm a socialistic/pacificistic/vegetarian) and many other things. And I mean ARGUE. Sometimes, our friendly debates dissolve until one of us calls a truce. He will never make me a "W" lover, nor believe the war in Iraq was/is/will be the right action. Nor does he really expect those things from me. I am who I am. These things are part of my core. So is submission. Not to accept who he is as a replacement of my own core being, but to serve him, love him, be used by him. He will never have the power to make me vote in any particular fashion, but I will keep the house the way he wants. I will go through our routines and rituals because that is what he wants....every moment of every day. I love knowing I please him in those areas. Perhaps I please him by being a debate partner too! Who knows??? No Doormat here!!!!

Homestead -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 8:35:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sunshine119 *fast reply to no one specifically*** Oh Lawd! I just became a zillion times happier with the Dominant who has me! We argue about politics (he is an arch conservative, I'm a socialistic/pacificistic/vegetarian) and many other things. And I mean ARGUE. Sometimes, our friendly debates dissolve until one of us calls a truce. He will never make me a "W" lover, nor believe the war in Iraq was/is/will be the right action. Nor does he really expect those things from me. I am who I am. These things are part of my core. So is submission. Not to accept who he is as a replacement of my own core being, but to serve him, love him, be used by him. He will never have the power to make me vote in any particular fashion, but I will keep the house the way he wants. I will go through our routines and rituals because that is what he wants....every moment of every day. I love knowing I please him in those areas. Perhaps I please him by being a debate partner too! Who knows??? No Doormat here!!!! YES. Total complacency can become boring. For a man with an active mind, it's like a death of mental stimulation. Pushing against air offers very little excercise for the mind.[;)]

amayos -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 10:28:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie Regardless, while Master enjoys training a slave and watching her blossom in her development, he most certainly does not become bored when she reaches the level of submission he has been wanting of her all along. She has now become the ultimate performance vehicle, with which he can do whatever he likes. As such, he enjoys her devotion greatly. He enjoys her neediness of him. The satisfaction he experiences from looking down at his slave, knowing she will endure anything for him, because of her deep submission, devotion and love for him, is not something he will ever tire of. My Master is enjoying the fruits of his labor. Well said, girlie. quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin Well, I guess that my definition is pretty close, with one exception...the people who I view as doormats don't "allow" others to treat them that way....they are incapable of making a concious choice as to what they "allow". They are not in submission to one...they are in submission to the entire world, not by choice, but because they do not have the ability to not be. They are not bright and creative people and they do not have the potential to ever rise above their current level. I may be way off the mark Amayos, but I have always gotten the impression from reading your posts that you desire the exceptional. Yes, you wish for her to be utterly dedicated and devoted to you...but my impression has been that your interests are in "whole" people or those who at least have the potential to become whole. My view of doormats is that they are not and have no capacity to ever become whole. You have said things well, with the exception of a few caveats I of course have to add. [:D] [1st] What is whole or not is rather subjective, and a matter of preference, I would say—especially when one uses the idea as a sword to judge others. But to use the term "whole," in its literary meaning (something along the lines of undamaged or complete), its description of an ideal of being or potential is no doubt a mortal odyssey for us all. Who is truly complete, anyway? When we scoff at others for not being complete, we are quietly saying that we are. This shows more than just a little level of judgment that is somewhat disturbing, once again, coming from a group of people who are themselves the objects of scrutiny by a large portion of society. [2nd] If a girl or boy is a slave to the world, what is the sin in that as well? If submission is not a choice for you, if it is within your nature to be such, why is this so wrong? I have found those who are deeply servile in mind and spirit to be the exceptions, not the tragedy of the commons. I of course prefer intelligence and talent in a servant; preexisting forms are lovely to take over and make use of, but equally pleasurable is the process of shaping and building to suit me. Any human who naturally submits to authority can be shaped and found useful.

BeingChewsie -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 10:35:41 AM)
It is OK. I told you before I have been listening to people tell me my life is fantasy for years. You just learn to accept that those who can will and those who can't will sit on the internet and tell the rest of us, we can't either. It becomes white noise after a while. quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie My question was not about a comparison in compliancy. It was asking if you truly believe one can not completely submit. You answered it. Thank you.

marieToo -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 12:06:12 PM)
Sure, if someone walks through their life believing that they have no value and allows people to shit on them, and wipe their feet on them (which is not the same as serving or being dominanted) who's to say its wrong? It would be judgemental to say that they need help, rather than exploitation. And god knows, as bdsmers, we dare not judge anything short of bloody murder. Maybe doormats like not knowing that they could be better off. Maybe they like having been victims and would like to continue being victims because its all they know. Maybe they enjoy someone defecating on them. Because after all, "completely dominating" someone is the same as "shitting on them" according to some people...and who are we to judge anything as wrong. Im sure theres someone out there who would be all to willing to scoop that right up and call it 'slave'.

amayos -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 1:05:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo Sure, if someone walks through their life believing that they have no value and allows people to shit on them, and wipe their feet on them (which is not the same as serving or being dominanted) who's to say its wrong? It would be judgemental to say that they need help, rather than exploitation. And god knows, as bdsmers, we dare not judge anything short of bloody murder. Maybe doormats like not knowing that they could be better off. Maybe they like having been victims and would like to continue being victims because its all they know. Maybe they enjoy someone defecating on them. Because after all, "completely dominating" someone is the same as "shitting on them" according to some people...and who are we to judge anything as wrong. marie, You have made an artform out of fixating upon something banal and taking it completely out of context for the sake of crude, confrontational argument; a rhetorical cleverness I admire from a technical point of view, but ultimately a hobby to which I will leave you.

marieToo -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 2:14:02 PM)
deleted, because the person it was written for, saw it.

raiken -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 2:47:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: liljoy Do we as submissives and/or slaves strive to submit all only to find that if we achieve it The Dominant becomes bored or considers us doormats? Should we not strive to submit all? lil_joy Quick reply: i would say that a person who becomes bored with the one they are in a relationship with has other issues occuring, than just that of the power exchange dynamic between them. i believe that in oreder for a relationship to stay youthful in nature, all parties have to keep themselves up to snuff as well. Both have to continually contribute to new and creative ideas. Both have to willingly be mindful of the other, and keep alive and share common interests, maintain and ascribe to the same wants, needs and desires that will foster new growth in the relationship. Nothing worse than being a part of a stagnating relationship that is going no where. If one changes over time and then finds they are no longer content within the current dynamic or relationship they share with another, ideally, i would hope that person would be forth right with this information. It is not good when folks would rather opt to live an unhappy lie and deny the truth, in order to avoid the necessary pains of a healthy split for the good of all involved. That is selfish to me, to waste the precious time of another they supposedly claimed to care about. Becuase when that begins to occur, one or both begin to become selfish with their time and affections, and both become left with the feeling of unfulfillment, and both become dissatisfied. This begins to foster conditions for comtempt and resentment to creep in. Better to be honest, and admit truth as it comes, in the kindest way possible in this type of situation. Just adding my two cents worth of perspective. *smile

juliaoceania -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 3:15:19 PM)
quote: Julia, I don't want to have to think this hard!!! I think there are two concepts here, and I directly disagree with you on that one, so I'm going to address that first. I don't think my definition of a doormat jives with yours. (There, I've said it.) My idea of what a doormat submissive has always been a person who had nothing to offer to a dominant or anyone other than her submission. Someone who came from a position of no strength whatsoever. I'm afraid I have been involved with this type of person in the past. More than once. More times than I care to share. I didn't recognize this when I first met them. It must have been the idea of someone wanting to submit, attracted to my strength, blah, blah, blah. Yes, the power is heady, but (and here's where I really wish to be ignored) when you finally determine that, without you the dominant, they have no other life, or ambitions, or place to live, or much desire to live, being with that person seems rather empty. I walk away, slowly, kindly. But I walk away. The more desireable submissive is one that actually has something within themselves that they are giving up. A position of strength. Something worth having. I've said this similarly in another thread but something along the lines of a submissive who 'has no need to submit to anyone other than the fact they find you so compelling'. That's what I want for my future. The timing has not been right for me to encounter that much. Now, with that type of person, that complete 'depth of servitude' is really REALLY worth striving for, as a dominant. I could froth on that in several different ways, but I'll just leave it at that. So, the tougher question for me to fathom, is which type was O? It seems to me that O had 'something' of a life. She was a photographer. But when Rene comes into her life and scoops her up and takes her to Roissy, we don't see any barriers from O, do we? And of course from there it becomes a moot point, as O has been shown her nature, or at least her future. In the other thread I mentioned how Sir Stephen had told O that she was 'easy', that any man who loved her could gain her submission. Rather makes her seem like a slut. But we don't really know much about her past, other than her dawdlings with her schoolgirl classmates (who she completely dominated), certainly not with other men prior to Rene. And as someone pointed out in the other thread, it seems that somewhere in the second book that O does contemplate her 'end'. So, perhaps O does fit the definition of a doormat. Jeff I do not think O was a doormat.. that was why I put quotation marks around it.. some WOULD think she was one, I do not.. so no diagreement from me on that point. I also said that a slave that gives this deeply is probably very deep herself, not everyone could see this, but I can. I do not think we disagee on anything actually, and I was referring to the OP and the fear the book inspired in me and communicating it to her. My fears and her fears are based upon our own internal issues that this book hit upon. My comments were about the fears it touched on for me. I read this book three years ago, so I have worked through those issues, but can relate to the OP

popeye1250 -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 3:19:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos quote: ORIGINAL: liljoy ok i have to ask why You perfer a doormat? To me doormat implies someone that follows not out of strength but out of weakness and despiration. Does it mean something else to You? lil_joy What is wrong with admitting weakness, or allowing yourself to be weak in covenant with one you would call Master? When giving all of oneself, what usually stands in the way is simple pride...an emotion difficult to vanquish, though its burden will only be fully realized once you succeed in doing so. The popular admonition that we must be our own person is a difficult thing to depart from, especially with everyone screaming in your ear since childhood that you must never allow yourself to be lowered before another. I do prefer the one who can abandon that societal admonition and exist to serve. I do certainly prefer a "doormat," or whatever equally colorful and derogatory phrase any would like to use to describe one who surrenders utterly and without condition—for she (or he) displays the penitence and humility required of slavery. A doormat is not prideful or egocentric; she places her Master above all things, even above herself. That is the apex of servitude, and the greatest thing any human can give another: all of his or her being. I do not understand questioning the worth of such a thing, outside of considering the pageantry many have made of the term "worth" in BDSM mostly for social and political reasons. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Yes, that's a good question Amayos. You prefer doormats? With no personality, no talking, no nothing? Of course they can talk. They can be brilliant and quite learned, too. In fact, they will be what I want of them, or as much as their mortal flesh and mind will allow. There is no sin in such a quality, in my mind. It is ideal. Amayos, I largely agree with you on this but I also agree with Lashra that a sub should also have a good sense of self esteem. I guess it's the "doormat" term and all the negative connotations that go along with it.

Mercnbeth -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 3:56:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo ...What Id really love to see is an established career woman, home owner, with a Mercedes in her driveway, turn it all over to a master, in the name of pure slavery. Now THAT would be a slave... this slave can bear witness that it DOES happen marie...to even more extremes than your example.

SusanofO -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 4:02:08 PM)
Warning, the following is just food for thought (and not a joke. Well, not really a joke. I just thought it would help get the point across, maybe, that "doormat" isn't always bad). I had no trouble understanding what amayos said. I didn't think it was a difficult concept. Here's a question for those who think 'doormat' is always a bad thing: **Was Jesus* a "doormat"?** Maybe ya'll can chew on that for awhile... - Susan

marieToo -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 5:24:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo ...What Id really love to see is an established career woman, home owner, with a Mercedes in her driveway, turn it all over to a master, in the name of pure slavery. Now THAT would be a slave... this slave can bear witness that it DOES happen marie...to even more extremes than your example. But why would he take it from her? Why would he want to? Why not put it away for her in case, just in case the day ever comes that she no longer feels that being a slave is right for her? Where does she go then? No more career advancement, no home to take her kids to, no money, nothing. I dont understand it. To me, slavery ( I dont like the word) but the way its applied here in bdsm...its simply the purest form of unmitigated love. Why oh why would you want to keep a person that is so devoted to you, vulnerable should they choose that slavery no longer suits them? I understand commitment, but we all know that sometimes...not always...but sometime hearts DO change. Now where does the slave go with nothing to her name? Would you want her to stay for economic reasons, or stay out of neediness because she hasnt the self esteem to make it on her own? Please help me understand how taking someone's money and possesions away from them could do anything but muddy up something that should be as pure as the driven snow.

CreativeDominant -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 5:26:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Warning, the following is just food for thought (and not a joke. Well, not really a joke. I just thought it would help get the point across, maybe, that "doormat" isn't always bad). I had no trouble understanding what amayos said. I didn't think it was a difficult concept. Here's a question for those who think 'doormat' is always a bad thing: **Was Jesus* a "doormat"?** Maybe ya'll can chew on that for awhile... - Susan Quick Answer...no, he wasn't. Yes, he was. It depends on your point of view and whether or not you are viewing specific instances in his life...as written about by mortal men and followers, not by critics or gods...or his overall life. Of course, it also depends on whether or not you believe what was written about him....some of it, all of it, or none of it. It sounds like a question to which there is an easy answer to and, in my faith, it is easy to answer. Intellectually, it is not quite as easy to answer.

juliaoceania -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 5:26:44 PM)
I think being a doormat is a bad thing. A doormat is something you walk on, whip shit off your shoe upon, and not think twice about until you need a new one. I do not think that any human being should be treated this way... and I know each has their own needs to be treated the way they like, and to each their own, but I do not think it is a good thing... My opinion. Jesus was not a doormat

DiurnalVampire -> RE: too compliant? (8/30/2006 5:35:37 PM)
Marie, any respectable Master or Mistress, while taking everything from their slave, also makes sure than in the event tey part ways, there will be support for the slave until they get on their feet. When my boy comes to me full time, everything will be mine. He will have nothing of his own anymore, willingly. And he isnt worried about what might happen if things dont work. I remember another thread mentioning how disheartening it is when people plan for the failure of a relationship from its get go. I have no intention on breaking my boys self esteem. Actually, I plan on increasing it. Should there be a reason we have to part ways, he will be prefectly capable of making it on his own. However, if slavery is the show of unmitigated love, as you put it, then thats what will kep someone there. Not the need and not the economic dependance... but the love of the relationship. My boy isnt afraid I wil leave him stranded if things change. He trusts that I am keeping his well being and interests in mind when I make the plans we make. He knows he will be taken care of in any eventuality, and becaue he can put that sort of trust in me is why we work so well together. That is why it doesnt get muddied up. Trust. My 2 cents DV

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125