Submissive- Is it Subservience?

A couple questions for anyone in general --

Why does virtually every woman say - I'm too (feisty, powerful, confident, independent - whatever the adjective) - to be submissive all the time. Not just said here in this thread. I read it a lot on other sites, too.

Is the idea that I'm NOT feisty, I'd like to have a partner I can be dependent on or defer to, I don't want to be in control, I'm not overly confident, just ok with myself - are all of those seen as negative traits?

I realize "subservient" conjures up images of "less than". Downtrodden was in the definition I googled:

Synonyms: submissive, deferential, compliant, obedient, dutiful, biddable, docile, passive, unassertive, subdued, downtrodden; informal; under someone's thumb

Click to expand...

But the other synonyms - are those negative? I like the thought I'm deferential to people in my life. That I'm compliant and obedient. Dutiful. I like being passive (I'd choose to call it go with the flow, a little zen) and frankly, I'm not all that assertive.

For sure I'm not downtrodden but that's one word out of the rest.

None of the words I like make me think I'm less than or not confident or fun or happy or an equal partner in making a relationship work.

Ok - so I realize I'm going to hear that it's pretty much to each his/her own.

But... is my submission somehow less --- submissive --- because my Dominant partner didn't have to work as hard at getting me on my knees as the submissive who is so confident, who fights it, who is large and in charge in all other areas?

cookiecat said:

A couple questions for anyone in general --

Why does virtually every woman say - I'm too (feisty, powerful, confident, independent - whatever the adjective) - to be submissive all the time. Not just said here in this thread. I read it a lot on other sites, too.

Is the idea that I'm NOT feisty, I'd like to have a partner I can be dependent on or defer to, I don't want to be in control, I'm not overly confident, just ok with myself - are all of those seen as negative traits?

I realize "subservient" conjures up images of "less than". Downtrodden was in the definition I googled:



But the other synonyms - are those negative? I like the thought I'm deferential to people in my life. That I'm compliant and obedient. Dutiful. I like being passive (I'd choose to call it go with the flow, a little zen) and frankly, I'm not all that assertive.

For sure I'm not downtrodden but that's one word out of the rest.

None of the words I like make me think I'm less than or not confident or fun or happy or an equal partner in making a relationship work.

Ok - so I realize I'm going to hear that it's pretty much to each his/her own.

But... is my submission somehow less --- submissive --- because my Dominant partner didn't have to work as hard at getting me on my knees as the submissive who is so confident, who fights it, who is large and in charge in all other areas?

Click to expand...

Your submission is certainly NOT less. And I have never thought of you as not confident. And I am more than happy to be extremely submissive to my partner. I can be fiesty at times... but being obedient and pleasing him and doing the right thing and being "good" / "following the rules" is really the way I approach life.

We each have our own paths and our own personality traits that we bring to the table. We each describe ourselves and come to understand our public selves and private selves and our relationships in our own way.

I have noticed the same thing you have... how often the way you describe your submission is a bit of an outlier in the room, but it is a voice that I have found to be so refreshing and mature and it causes me to reflect on how I see myself. It has caused me to consider the question of why I don't move more towards your understanding of submission on the spectrum.

Thank you for asking this question Cookie.

cookiecat said:

A couple questions for anyone in general --

Why does virtually every woman say - I'm too (feisty, powerful, confident, independent - whatever the adjective) - to be submissive all the time. Not just said here in this thread. I read it a lot on other sites, too.

Click to expand...

It's not about women, it's about Humans. We like our independence and personality, and we also like to have control over our lives. It's scary not to, on a very primitive level. Your lizard cortex tells you not to go that way.

We may choose to tickle our nerves sometimes, but not all the time.

Also don't mistake submission with the need to depend on someone / have others depend on you. And other ties that we actually like to have while retaining our freedom and individuality.

Is the idea that I'm NOT feisty, I'd like to have a partner I can be dependent on or defer to, I don't want to be in control, I'm not overly confident, just ok with myself - are all of those seen as negative traits?

Click to expand...

Well, first of all yes. They are viewed as negative traits, and for a good reasons.
Exclude being dependent though - all of us are depending on our relatives and friends, and even co-workers. People LIKE to depend and be in a group.
What people don't like is to be weak. Less confident, less in control, less independent. Those are all relative weaknesses that each one of us HAS, but only in certain situations. We are fine, as long as there are places where we can relax and STILL not be less confident.

But... is my submission somehow less --- submissive --- because my Dominant partner didn't have to work as hard at getting me on my knees as the submissive who is so confident, who fights it, who is large and in charge in all other areas?

Click to expand...

If you can trust someone, you can sink on your knees and not feel uncomfortable. It doesn't mean that you can sink on your knees in front of ANYONE - a random dude on the street.
What I'm saying is that you can let go with your Master - that's good and beautiful. It doesn't mean that you are giving up your freedom as a person - it just means that you've included him as part of your safe space. It doesn't mean that you are completely all right with always being less feisty, less in control.
BUT. Many people just don't go there. Don't include others. Some of us are more solitary than others, some didn't find QUITE that soulmate, or there can be other reasons. So there's no such person whom they include that deep.

That's why I'm saying that yes, servitude can go with submission very well. But it's not a must, not a defining thing - just an addition.

I don't know that I've ever said I was too much of anything to be submissive all the time. I do make distinctions between what is submissive inside of and outside of my relationships. Inside my relationship, I'm submissive. He makes the decisions and tells me what to do and I do it (save for things that are just impossible for me). Outside of that I'm just a person. I care for me friends and family and do nice things for them and may even do those things at my own expense (and sometimes I don't say "no" when I should). I'm not in a powerful career position (I don't have a degree either). I can be very independent and outgoing and sometimes I need some backup. :shrugs: I'm human.

I try to make it a point to be less dependent and be far more self reliant so I don't burden others. This is also because I'm working on myself because of my particular brand of mental illness.

For damn sure, I'm not out running the world. I just don't really care how others talk about their brand of submissiveness. I used to think this stuff was interesting, but now most of it looks like B-movie theatrics. I try to stay away from the B-movies (even though some are so bad they're hilarious). It would probably be best if you stopped comparing yourself to all the independent, fierce ladies that also like to be bossed around. They're just different from you.

To be fair, I am very comfortable with where I'm at in terms of who I am and my level of submission / subservience. It took a while to get here (12 years of dipping my toes in to the kinky waters) but that's been part of the fun - learning and growing along the way.

I've learned a bit being here on Lit since I've been back this last year, too! Being involved in conversations here in the Talk section have opened my eyes to different ways to look at my relationship.

That, to me, is the really exciting thing about bdsm. Along with all the arousing shenanigans, the self-exploration and discovery is more than pleasantly surprising.

I'm not all that busy comparing my level of submission. I was just struck by this theme of confident woman, never a doormat, need to be tamed to feel submission that much more and curious what others thought.

I appreciate the input.

Cookie, you are assertive. And forthright. And direct. And a little bossy.

I think of you as an older sister. In all ways. I run a lot by you.
Now, I'm not your Dom, lol, but no. I don't see you as submissive in all areas of your life. At all.

Farawyn said:

Cookie, you are assertive. And forthright. And direct. And a little bossy.

I think of you as an older sister. In all ways. I run a lot by you.
Now, I'm not your Dom, lol, but no. I don't see you as submissive in all areas of your life. At all.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering why it's such a BAD thing to be seen as submissive in other areas of my life?? Not weak. Not weak-minded. Not insecure or unable to function without direction. But the positive attributes of submission. What are the positive attributes of submission???

cookiecat said:

I'm wondering why it's such a BAD thing to be seen as submissive in other areas of my life?? Not weak. Not weak-minded. Not insecure or unable to function without direction. But the positive attributes of submission. What are the positive attributes of submission???

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was bad. I'm saying that you are the opposite of the definition you posted on a lot of fronts.
I consider myself a nurturer.
Submissive sexually.

Farawyn said:

I didn't say it was bad. I'm saying that you are the opposite of the definition you posted on a lot of fronts.
I consider myself a nurturer.
Submissive sexually.

Click to expand...

i'm a fake!

I wasn't thinking you when I used the word bad.

I'm gonna quit belaboring this point.

Carry on!!

cookiecat said:

i'm a fake!

I wasn't thinking you when I used the word bad.

I'm gonna quit belaboring this point.

Carry on!!

Click to expand...

I know you weren't. And I mostly agree with you. I don't think being submissive needs to be followed with "but I'm also superhero feminazi at work!!!"
I think it downgrades what being submissive is, and buys into the notion that a woman (Im saying woman cause I'm speaking for me) can't me many things.

But I'm not subservient.

Farawyn said:

I know you weren't. And I mostly agree with you. I don't think being submissive needs to be followed with "but I'm also superhero feminazi at work!!!"
I think it downgrades what being submissive is, and buys into the notion that a woman (Im saying woman cause I'm speaking for me) can't me many things.

But I'm not subservient.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of us are saying closer to the same things than not.

Perhaps some of us (speaking for myself) often add something as a clarification regarding how private behavior is not generally reflected in public behavior. This is not the same as being a raging feminazi thank you very much. I find I am inclined to make such clarifications because when I first came to Lit I kept interacting with so called PYLs who assumed that if I was a sub I was also not very smart and I would just do whatever, 'cause sub= doormat.
I am not the loudest voice in the room. Though I know how to make myself heard. I tend to listen and wait and see how I can be of service. I often think of myself as a servant leader even when I am "in charge"

The word subservient has shades of "less than" for me...that may not be fair, but that is partly why I reject it.

I submit. Willingly. Happily. But I am no one's inferior.

cascadiabound said:

I think a lot of us are saying closer to the same things than not.

Perhaps some of us (speaking for myself) often add something as a clarification regarding how private behavior is not generally reflected in public behavior. This is not the same as being a raging feminazi thank you very much. I find I am inclined to make such clarifications because when I first came to Lit I kept interacting with so called PYLs who assumed that if I was a sub I was also not very smart and I would just do whatever, 'cause sub= doormat.
I am not the loudest voice in the room. Though I know how to make myself heard. I tend to listen and wait and see how I can be of service. I often think of myself as a servant leader even when I am "in charge"

The word subservient has shades of "less than" for me...that may not be fair, but that is partly why I reject it.

I submit. Willingly. Happily. But I am no one's inferior.

Click to expand...

I think this is maybe a good point regarding assumptions around 'submission' (in whatever form that comes).

I also think, Cookie, is that one salient point is that your version of subservience comes from a place of thoughtfulness.

And then there's the trope of 'boss in the boardroom, slave in the bedroom' that seems to have leaked over from understandings around men wanting dominatrices because they're tired of having to think. I personally don't really buy that so much. I don't find that being on the s side of the d/s equation means I don't have to think - I'm thinking and making decisions all the freaking time. It's probably the most 'engaged' sex I ever have.

Yes to all.

We all have to be comfortable in our own spanked skin.

cascadiabound said:

I think a lot of us are saying closer to the same things than not.

Perhaps some of us (speaking for myself) often add something as a clarification regarding how private behavior is not generally reflected in public behavior. This is not the same as being a raging feminazi thank you very much. I find I am inclined to make such clarifications because when I first came to Lit I kept interacting with so called PYLs who assumed that if I was a sub I was also not very smart and I would just do whatever, 'cause sub= doormat.
I am not the loudest voice in the room. Though I know how to make myself heard. I tend to listen and wait and see how I can be of service. I often think of myself as a servant leader even when I am "in charge"

The word subservient has shades of "less than" for me...that may not be fair, but that is partly why I reject it.

I submit. Willingly. Happily. But I am no one's inferior.

Click to expand...

I think you explained this well. These days I can't be bothered with qualifying my words anymore. I have so much going on in my life I'm just not nearly as thoughtful to others. On the other hand, I realize that the way others talk about their version of submission has nothing to do with me. I think that's why I just feel no kinship with women that identify as submissive. I not subservient and I am also not the ultimate boss in my life. I'm a follower and have passed up being in management several times because fuck those people. I have no patience but in a pinch I've got a plan and a way of executing it. Again, human with a life.

cookiecat said:

But... is my submission somehow less --- submissive --- because my Dominant partner didn't have to work as hard at getting me on my knees as the submissive who is so confident, who fights it, who is large and in charge in all other areas?

Click to expand...

Yes.

If you compare two things to find out if one is less than, greater than or equal to the other, you first of all need to determine how you want to measure it.

It is widely accepted on this planet, that the value of something is the combination of its usefulness and its scarcity, the latter being merely an abstraction of the difficulty to obtain it.

The more difficult it is to obtain something and the more useful it is to have it, the higher the value.


This does not mean that you are required to measure it this way. It's just one completely legal way out of infinite ones.

cascadiabound said:

But I am no one's inferior.

Click to expand...

This is not really something you can decide.


It's not like the slaves of the colonial era, the women of the industrial age, the Jews in Germany, the Tutsi in Rwanda...simply forgot to believe or mention that they are not inferior and if they just had, they would have been treated as equals. The people around you have to believe that you are not inferior. If they don't, your personal opinion is just the ramblings of a crazy woman.

Primalex said:

This is not really something you can decide.


It's not like the slaves of the colonial era, the women of the industrial age, the Jews in Germany, the Tutsi in Rwanda...simply forgot to believe or mention that they are not inferior and if they just had, they would have been treated as equals. The people around you have to believe that you are not inferior. If they don't, your personal opinion is just the ramblings of a crazy woman.

Click to expand...

You are mistaken.

I recognize that I am particularly fortunate to live in a time and place of relative enlightenment and egalitarianism. However... this does not stop some people from treating me as if I am less than. I do not accept this view of me relative to them.

In all of the examples you gave above, individuals in those oppressed groups recognized that while they were TREATED as if they were LESS than, they KNEW IN THEIR HEARTS that they were NOT INFERIOR... some of those people have been identified in history as heroes and martyrs in struggles to live, survive and reduce oppression.

But these are the ramblings of a crazy woman.

cascadiabound said:

I do not accept this view of me relative to them.

Click to expand...

I won't accept hurricanes.

There.

In all of the examples you gave above, individuals in those oppressed groups recognized that while they were TREATED as if they were LESS than, they KNEW IN THEIR HEARTS that they were NOT INFERIOR...

Click to expand...

Or they were just megalomaniac. How would they know the difference?

Primalex said:

I won't accept hurricanes.

There.



Or they were just megalomaniac. How would they know the difference?

Click to expand...

How does anyone know the difference then or now? How do you know the difference?

Primalex said:

This is not really something you can decide.


It's not like the slaves of the colonial era, the women of the industrial age, the Jews in Germany, the Tutsi in Rwanda...simply forgot to believe or mention that they are not inferior and if they just had, they would have been treated as equals. The people around you have to believe that you are not inferior. If they don't, your personal opinion is just the ramblings of a crazy woman.

Click to expand...

You're wrong.

cascadiabound said:

You are mistaken.

I recognize that I am particularly fortunate to live in a time and place of relative enlightenment and egalitarianism. However... this does not stop some people form treating me as if I am less than. I do not accept this view of me relative to them.

In all of the examples you gave above, individuals in those oppressed groups recognized that while they were TREATED as if they were LESS than, they KNEW IN THEIR HEARTS that they were NOT INFERIOR... some of those people have been identified in history as heroes and martyrs in struggles to live, survive and reduce oppression.

But these are the ramblings of a crazy woman.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Farawyn said:

You're wrong.


Yes.

Click to expand...

Thank you for such thought-provoking discussion. Your insights and in-depth discussions have been quite useful! I greatly appreciate so many sharing options in such a respectful manner! Hoping everyone has a wonderful week ahead!!!

BubblyBookworm said:

Does submission equate with subservience in all aspects of life?

I am curious to hear people's ideas.

Click to expand...

Up to the individual. Personally I think the two are linked, and probably are in the mind of most females. To serve a male, in every meaning of the word, is very stimulating for me. To submit to him is even more stimulating.

Primalex said:

I won't accept hurricanes.

There.



Or they were just megalomaniac. How would they know the difference?

Click to expand...

That's just silly - hurricanes have an objective existence. You can not call them hurricanes, but they'll keep on hurricaning regardless.
Inferiority is an almost entirely subjective concept. You can think someone is inferior, but that doesn't make it so.

Mrtenant said:

How does anyone know the difference then or now?

Click to expand...

You don't.

There is a much better question to ask though:
What if the other guys had won the Civil War?

What would children learn at school then?

How do you know the difference?

Click to expand...

I solved this problem by simply being megalomaniac.

KimGordon67 said:

That's just silly - hurricanes have an objective existence. You can not call them hurricanes, but they'll keep on hurricaning regardless.

Click to expand...

And people can keep on treating others as inferior.

Inferiority is an almost entirely subjective concept. You can think someone is inferior, but that doesn't make it so.

Click to expand...

Because it is an entirely subjective concept, it is exactly that way.