unfoundiamond
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Posts
- 706
Okay So...
I was having a conversation with a wonderful new friend, from Lit actually, and we came to the topic of "subs" and submissive/mission...
With no disrespect to her I'd like to say we did not completely understand each other, and I wanted to bring it here for further discussion. But if you're reading this, K, I enjoy your perspective... and hope not to offend you.
I am sure this has been talked to death here...
I was wondering if I could like drop what ideas I have formed and maybe the people here could like weight in... tell me if my perception is totally offbase, or I am just forming my own ideas. (I am known for this)
Am I just forming my own opinion based on what I am seeing and though I may not be dead on about everything, Am I comming along well in my reasoning the information I have read and heard....
Okay here goes my questions and reasons...
I had understood that D/s is either Dominant/nation(dominant or domination) and submissive/mission (is that making sence) and that this is a umbrella term (or mostly encompassing term... including (but not limited to) diffrent forms of D/s relationships... ie M/s relationships or D/lg relationships, or Domme/sub or the Rope Tier/tiee (whatever that's called) and even Top/bottom in the sense that the bottom is submissive to the sexually dominant Top...
These types of submission are all very diffrent and not exchangeable... but can all be called "types of submission"... right?
Now...
sub to me means submissive... its a shortened verision of submissive... yes?
It (to me) does not imply ANY personality traits except at least at some point (wether selective about the person you submit to and/or frequency/degree of submission or not) this person doesn have the submissive personality trait (to whatever degree).
I say this because there are submissive people who don't even practice BDSM, they just submit and its just their personality to do so,
My mother in law is one... she doesn't even know it, and she would be so much happier if she knew why she felt she had to do the things she does... its hard to explain, but if you knew her, you'd understand.
She submits to the boys all the time and she doesn't even know that she is doing it. Its about power exchange (or one sided power hogging in this case)
Or someone like me, who is a socially dominant woman, but enjoys to be sexually submissive, that's not implied with sub, it has to be specified.
However, it can reffer to a sexual cituation, when I hear it I do not automaticly think, "that's so and so's bottom... or that's so and so's sex partner..." when someone says that's so and so's sub.
I would think that this person was the submissive one in the power exchange between them, regardless of type of kink or sex they enjoyed (assuming one even knows)...
It only says submissive, not any other traits
(like strength of character, or social approach regardless of how "some" subs may be the term sub doesn't reffer to a socially dominant, carreer oriented, selectively submissive people... that's just one type...)
the other traits must be specified... they are not implied with the label sub.
I was under the impression that if you don't know someones exact type of relationship calling the pyl the sub is a decently unoffensive general term a person could use in reffrence to someone... always politlely... of course...
Like you can call almost any kind of Dominant a Dom, and thought he may be a Master... its not offensive as you are reffering to Him with regard to his postition of power.
Also I was under the impression D/s reffered to the way the PYLs/pyls interacted with each other, and does not IMPLY sex...
like in the case of the ProDomme and sub that do not actually have intercourse, and just to say he is her sub or submissive in a power exchange or D/s relationship doesn't imply she will have sex with him, she may get him off throught sexual acts, like cbt or a strapon in the ass with a good old fashioned reach around, in his wildest wet dream, but that's the extent for them.
-so it would have to be a innacurate to say a sub implies sex... right?
I am not saying other kinds of D/s don't have lots of sex, I am not saying the inverses of what I am saying are true... (just because a slave is a sub doesn't make a sub a slave... I know this...)
I know people say there is no D/s rulebook or whatever so maybe you can help me by telling me if my deductions are correct...?
Because I sometimes think people assume because I am young that I am just some naieve kid... and I do think I have a decent idea of how this works...
I guess I will soon find out...
Thanx in advance...
I was having a conversation with a wonderful new friend, from Lit actually, and we came to the topic of "subs" and submissive/mission...
With no disrespect to her I'd like to say we did not completely understand each other, and I wanted to bring it here for further discussion. But if you're reading this, K, I enjoy your perspective... and hope not to offend you.
I am sure this has been talked to death here...
I was wondering if I could like drop what ideas I have formed and maybe the people here could like weight in... tell me if my perception is totally offbase, or I am just forming my own ideas. (I am known for this)
Am I just forming my own opinion based on what I am seeing and though I may not be dead on about everything, Am I comming along well in my reasoning the information I have read and heard....
Okay here goes my questions and reasons...
I had understood that D/s is either Dominant/nation(dominant or domination) and submissive/mission (is that making sence) and that this is a umbrella term (or mostly encompassing term... including (but not limited to) diffrent forms of D/s relationships... ie M/s relationships or D/lg relationships, or Domme/sub or the Rope Tier/tiee (whatever that's called) and even Top/bottom in the sense that the bottom is submissive to the sexually dominant Top...
These types of submission are all very diffrent and not exchangeable... but can all be called "types of submission"... right?
Now...
sub to me means submissive... its a shortened verision of submissive... yes?
It (to me) does not imply ANY personality traits except at least at some point (wether selective about the person you submit to and/or frequency/degree of submission or not) this person doesn have the submissive personality trait (to whatever degree).
I say this because there are submissive people who don't even practice BDSM, they just submit and its just their personality to do so,
My mother in law is one... she doesn't even know it, and she would be so much happier if she knew why she felt she had to do the things she does... its hard to explain, but if you knew her, you'd understand.
She submits to the boys all the time and she doesn't even know that she is doing it. Its about power exchange (or one sided power hogging in this case)
Or someone like me, who is a socially dominant woman, but enjoys to be sexually submissive, that's not implied with sub, it has to be specified.
However, it can reffer to a sexual cituation, when I hear it I do not automaticly think, "that's so and so's bottom... or that's so and so's sex partner..." when someone says that's so and so's sub.
I would think that this person was the submissive one in the power exchange between them, regardless of type of kink or sex they enjoyed (assuming one even knows)...
It only says submissive, not any other traits
(like strength of character, or social approach regardless of how "some" subs may be the term sub doesn't reffer to a socially dominant, carreer oriented, selectively submissive people... that's just one type...)
the other traits must be specified... they are not implied with the label sub.
I was under the impression that if you don't know someones exact type of relationship calling the pyl the sub is a decently unoffensive general term a person could use in reffrence to someone... always politlely... of course...
Like you can call almost any kind of Dominant a Dom, and thought he may be a Master... its not offensive as you are reffering to Him with regard to his postition of power.
Also I was under the impression D/s reffered to the way the PYLs/pyls interacted with each other, and does not IMPLY sex...
like in the case of the ProDomme and sub that do not actually have intercourse, and just to say he is her sub or submissive in a power exchange or D/s relationship doesn't imply she will have sex with him, she may get him off throught sexual acts, like cbt or a strapon in the ass with a good old fashioned reach around, in his wildest wet dream, but that's the extent for them.
-so it would have to be a innacurate to say a sub implies sex... right?
I am not saying other kinds of D/s don't have lots of sex, I am not saying the inverses of what I am saying are true... (just because a slave is a sub doesn't make a sub a slave... I know this...)
I know people say there is no D/s rulebook or whatever so maybe you can help me by telling me if my deductions are correct...?
Because I sometimes think people assume because I am young that I am just some naieve kid... and I do think I have a decent idea of how this works...
I guess I will soon find out...
Thanx in advance...