Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
would pat make a good sub or pet to a strict master or owner? (alternatively, Would it be good for pat to be a sub or pet [assuming she's considering the matter]?)
a person, we will name "pat", was raised by a very strict parent [or parents]. until pat left home at 18, following orders was expected, and pat complied, even as a teen. indeed, beyond 'complying,' pat by an early age simply never thought of going against the wishes and directions of the parent. [Added: in general, she did not seem unhappy, in those years.]
as a result, now as an adult, when pat faces any assertion or authority, there is no resistance. if asked for example, 'why are you doing as your boss says, without question, even when his directions are weird," pat says, "he probably knows more than i, and he IS the boss." and if pressed, "but his last directions were crazy," pat responds, "if he's really crazy i'll probably be let go, and i'll have to find a new boss."
pat appears to have no 'self esteem' issues. pat says, "i know i'm mostly doing a good job. i'm told i'm a good employee, though i do make mistakes. i like to be very clear about the assigned tasks, and i'm pleased [ADDED: and happy] when do them well."
in pat's marriage, which eventually broke down, the spouse was strongly in charge, but was also extremely unstable and erratic, sometimes scaring the children. [deleted] pat did not consider the spouse's authority to be part of the problem, and eventually left with the kids, to a safe place, and did not return.
Question: Would pat make a good sub or 'pet' for a strict master or 'owner'?
NOTE: I have tried to describe pat in gender neutral terms, but have slipped in the wording of two options. obviously "her" is not the correct word.
ADDED CLARIFICATIONS: We will assume pat has expressed an interest in an SM relationship as sub/pet. In asking if pat would make a good sub/pet we are imagining a typical master or owner--or a spectrum of them; or you yourself if master or owner of either sex.
I think the question 'would pat would be happy?' is closely related to the ones i've posed.
ADDED June 6: the following is a collection of additional descriptions or characterizations of pat, made by pure, in the period May 29-June 6:
if she's in a lineup for a bus, and the driver says, unfairly, 'move to the back of the line because others were here first' and this wasn't the case, she simply says, "yes sir."
of what does her "surrender" to the master consist: "on your knees"; "yes sir." same words, same type of behavior.
does the master have 'authority' over her? perhaps. but so did the bus driver. does she _give the master authority over her_? perhaps yes, but her parents, her teachers, the traffic cop, all get the same treatment. one might say, rather than 'give' authority, that she, unreflectively, gives way in the face of any authority that asserts itself.
===
she does not *go onto her knees* before her master.
she is for a long time, always and routinely on her knees before all authorities. it's not an issue she reflects about, or even makes a choice regarding.
===
the problem with pat, as i see it, is that it's hard to give content to any particular "giving up of self will," if she's never shown any.
===
Suppose pat finds an 'owner' and has a relationship with him or her. We [hypothetically] picture that owner telling pat to do something; pat does it without a question or thought of resisting. Presumably this would include some difficult things, like say peeing in front of the master; never touching her panties for a whole day, whatever.[...]
pat already does have a kind of all round "freedom": when she encounters authorities, she does what they say. and, assuming they're not monsters, this 'frees' her for other concerns. many if not most people in the world live this way; under strong authority. indeed this is ancient. IMO, allegedy 'primitive' tribes, aboriginal grouping have strong authority; no one questions, say, the rules about contacts with menstruating women. young men do not say "i think i'll pass on the 'initiation into manhood.'"
so the change for pat is rather opposite [if, hypothetically she becomes someone's pet]. if she's now freer, it's in the bedroom, or sexually. although before she yielded to a tradition minded husband, who might have, say, insisted on fucking every second night, she now has a master with many more options. so we picture her "freely" complying with non-ordinary sexual demands, say for example having sex with a woman.
====
i specified that pat deferred to authorities or those (rightfully) claiming or asserting authority.
i did not say she'd let the neighbor's dog pee on her foot.
as to the plumber example, originally by rj. what does pat do when a pipe breaks [and she's alone]? sit there in anxiety or call a plumber. i'd tend to say the latter, for i did not intend that pat be helpless, or totally lacking in *initiative* in the face of all life's emergencies. else she could not hold a job (requiring occasionally dealing with the unforeseen. however i do see her paying his bill that somewhat inflated (though not criminal). and if the tax authorities say the expense is not deductible, i don't see her appealing it.
===
i did not say a stranger could walk up and grab her purse and saunter off, there being no resistance. so you're talking about a more passive 'pat', but a valid one to consider. i picture that pat would resist, and even go tell a cop. BUT if he says, "look lady, i've got more important matters than lost purses to deal with" i do NOT picture her saying "what is your badge number? how do i contact your supervisor at the police station?"
--
general note. i did not exactly say pat was a 'natural submissive,' though again such a person is a 'sister' and deserves discussion. i think pat had some 'natural tendencies' not to be very assertive; but her parents and teachers etc. trained her from toddlerhood, to obey; to follow orders, and to respect authority, even where somewhat misused, according to some subject to it.
hence the question of her "submission" to an owner, sm style. she is, one might say, already trained to a 't', as a particular type of person.
==
Some of us might find her lacking an inmportant ingredient for life as an individual. Self will; resistance to arbitrary authority; capability of rebellion against it. 'orneriness' as you put it, as is sometimes not inappropriate in life--as we see it.
OTOH, we can't just recommend 'therapy' for those whose style does not agree, saying "therapy would be good for pat; because pat doesn't seem to know what's good for pat." so looking deeper, i'd say pat is a POOR candidate for therapy. as she sees it, her 'style' does not create probs for her, and she's not unhappy with it. as to the marriage, i think she might say that everyone makes a poor choice sometimes.; IOW her deference to authority did set up, create, or further the marital problem.
===
now, to become a sub to a rigourous master, or a 'pet' to an owner means giving up some aspects of "identity"**: for example, i give up doing what i please in a number of areas, typically, including sex.
the sequence is 1. have an identity; 2. give up some aspects of identity**.
**[ADDED: this is not well phrased[...] perhaps "giving up some of the activities associated with some aspects of identity" is better; let's say, giving up masturbation or fucking whomever you please. the 'aspect of identity', sexual desire, is still there. [...]
imo, pat is not at step 1, and therefore can't get to step 2.
==
she is not 'mildly depressed' nor 'unhappy.' i would say that if a little less than "upbeat", she is a positive person.
she believes that most people in authority are doing a good job, and is optimistic that they will solve the problems they encounter, if supported by good people such as herself.
all this is to say that i see no reason to "pathologize" pat, to put her in ANY of the diagnostic categories of 'mental disorders,' e.g. the psychiatrists' DSM-IV. she has basic social competence, can hold down a good job in a support role, and faces a prospect of a better, if still strongly traditional, husband-ruled marriage. while at this point experienced only in conventional ('vanilla') sex, she has normal desire and responses within a traditional structure prescribing wifely duties in supporting her husband and raising their children.
we will assume she has taken a minor [ADDED, a better word might be "some"] interest in bdsm because she discovered one of her workmates is a 'pet.' the authority structure of that relationship intrigues her. her knowledge is lacking, but her curiousity has been provoked.
===
[pure considering the merits of the last option, 'not enough info']
i think though that 'not enough info' is quite plausible. and consistent with what you suggest.
that is, there is [hypothetically, considering this option] nothing about pat that would preclude her from doing sm, being a pet, etc--and getting the usual 'benefits'/satisfactions that others do, the ones fit for the vocation. the personality i sketched is, so to say, neither here nor there, as regard to her benefit or lack thereof from an SM relationship. this is the position of some in the Type A thread.
(type A may or may not be correlated [positively or negatively] with 'submission.')
as i put it above, there is no sign that Pat has any pathology or "problem" in her mind or personality. she's just somewhat more compliant and subservient than some women, in our culture, now, find appealing for themselves. hence [hypothetically, according to this option] her consent, assuming she gets into some sessions as a 'pet,' is not vitiated [or made questionable] by the facts proposed; IOW it's a valid choice, that cannot be invalidated by appeal to 'universal standards' allegedly going beyond personal prefs.
-----
a person, we will name "pat", was raised by a very strict parent [or parents]. until pat left home at 18, following orders was expected, and pat complied, even as a teen. indeed, beyond 'complying,' pat by an early age simply never thought of going against the wishes and directions of the parent
as a result, now as an adult, when pat faces any assertion or authority, there is no resistance. if asked for example, 'why are you doing as your boss says, without question, even when his directions are weird," pat says, "he probably knows more than i, and he IS the boss." and if pressed, "but his last directions were crazy," pat responds, "if he's really crazy i'll probably be let go, and i'll have to find a new boss."
pat appears to have no 'self esteem' issues. pat says, "i know i'm mostly doing a good job. i'm told i'm a good employee, though i do make mistakes. i like to be very clear about the assigned tasks, and i'm pleased [ADDED: and happy] when do them well."
in pat's marriage, which eventually broke down, the spouse was strongly in charge, but was also extremely unstable and erratic, sometimes scaring the children. [deleted] pat did not consider the spouse's authority to be part of the problem, and eventually left with the kids, to a safe place, and did not return.
Question: Would pat make a good sub or 'pet' for a strict master or 'owner'?
NOTE: I have tried to describe pat in gender neutral terms, but have slipped in the wording of two options. obviously "her" is not the correct word.
ADDED CLARIFICATIONS: We will assume pat has expressed an interest in an SM relationship as sub/pet. In asking if pat would make a good sub/pet we are imagining a typical master or owner--or a spectrum of them; or you yourself if master or owner of either sex.
I think the question 'would pat would be happy?' is closely related to the ones i've posed.
ADDED June 6: the following is a collection of additional descriptions or characterizations of pat, made by pure, in the period May 29-June 6:
if she's in a lineup for a bus, and the driver says, unfairly, 'move to the back of the line because others were here first' and this wasn't the case, she simply says, "yes sir."
of what does her "surrender" to the master consist: "on your knees"; "yes sir." same words, same type of behavior.
does the master have 'authority' over her? perhaps. but so did the bus driver. does she _give the master authority over her_? perhaps yes, but her parents, her teachers, the traffic cop, all get the same treatment. one might say, rather than 'give' authority, that she, unreflectively, gives way in the face of any authority that asserts itself.
===
she does not *go onto her knees* before her master.
she is for a long time, always and routinely on her knees before all authorities. it's not an issue she reflects about, or even makes a choice regarding.
===
the problem with pat, as i see it, is that it's hard to give content to any particular "giving up of self will," if she's never shown any.
===
Suppose pat finds an 'owner' and has a relationship with him or her. We [hypothetically] picture that owner telling pat to do something; pat does it without a question or thought of resisting. Presumably this would include some difficult things, like say peeing in front of the master; never touching her panties for a whole day, whatever.[...]
pat already does have a kind of all round "freedom": when she encounters authorities, she does what they say. and, assuming they're not monsters, this 'frees' her for other concerns. many if not most people in the world live this way; under strong authority. indeed this is ancient. IMO, allegedy 'primitive' tribes, aboriginal grouping have strong authority; no one questions, say, the rules about contacts with menstruating women. young men do not say "i think i'll pass on the 'initiation into manhood.'"
so the change for pat is rather opposite [if, hypothetically she becomes someone's pet]. if she's now freer, it's in the bedroom, or sexually. although before she yielded to a tradition minded husband, who might have, say, insisted on fucking every second night, she now has a master with many more options. so we picture her "freely" complying with non-ordinary sexual demands, say for example having sex with a woman.
====
i specified that pat deferred to authorities or those (rightfully) claiming or asserting authority.
i did not say she'd let the neighbor's dog pee on her foot.
as to the plumber example, originally by rj. what does pat do when a pipe breaks [and she's alone]? sit there in anxiety or call a plumber. i'd tend to say the latter, for i did not intend that pat be helpless, or totally lacking in *initiative* in the face of all life's emergencies. else she could not hold a job (requiring occasionally dealing with the unforeseen. however i do see her paying his bill that somewhat inflated (though not criminal). and if the tax authorities say the expense is not deductible, i don't see her appealing it.
===
i did not say a stranger could walk up and grab her purse and saunter off, there being no resistance. so you're talking about a more passive 'pat', but a valid one to consider. i picture that pat would resist, and even go tell a cop. BUT if he says, "look lady, i've got more important matters than lost purses to deal with" i do NOT picture her saying "what is your badge number? how do i contact your supervisor at the police station?"
--
general note. i did not exactly say pat was a 'natural submissive,' though again such a person is a 'sister' and deserves discussion. i think pat had some 'natural tendencies' not to be very assertive; but her parents and teachers etc. trained her from toddlerhood, to obey; to follow orders, and to respect authority, even where somewhat misused, according to some subject to it.
hence the question of her "submission" to an owner, sm style. she is, one might say, already trained to a 't', as a particular type of person.
==
Some of us might find her lacking an inmportant ingredient for life as an individual. Self will; resistance to arbitrary authority; capability of rebellion against it. 'orneriness' as you put it, as is sometimes not inappropriate in life--as we see it.
OTOH, we can't just recommend 'therapy' for those whose style does not agree, saying "therapy would be good for pat; because pat doesn't seem to know what's good for pat." so looking deeper, i'd say pat is a POOR candidate for therapy. as she sees it, her 'style' does not create probs for her, and she's not unhappy with it. as to the marriage, i think she might say that everyone makes a poor choice sometimes.; IOW her deference to authority did set up, create, or further the marital problem.
===
now, to become a sub to a rigourous master, or a 'pet' to an owner means giving up some aspects of "identity"**: for example, i give up doing what i please in a number of areas, typically, including sex.
the sequence is 1. have an identity; 2. give up some aspects of identity**.
**[ADDED: this is not well phrased[...] perhaps "giving up some of the activities associated with some aspects of identity" is better; let's say, giving up masturbation or fucking whomever you please. the 'aspect of identity', sexual desire, is still there. [...]
imo, pat is not at step 1, and therefore can't get to step 2.
==
she is not 'mildly depressed' nor 'unhappy.' i would say that if a little less than "upbeat", she is a positive person.
she believes that most people in authority are doing a good job, and is optimistic that they will solve the problems they encounter, if supported by good people such as herself.
all this is to say that i see no reason to "pathologize" pat, to put her in ANY of the diagnostic categories of 'mental disorders,' e.g. the psychiatrists' DSM-IV. she has basic social competence, can hold down a good job in a support role, and faces a prospect of a better, if still strongly traditional, husband-ruled marriage. while at this point experienced only in conventional ('vanilla') sex, she has normal desire and responses within a traditional structure prescribing wifely duties in supporting her husband and raising their children.
we will assume she has taken a minor [ADDED, a better word might be "some"] interest in bdsm because she discovered one of her workmates is a 'pet.' the authority structure of that relationship intrigues her. her knowledge is lacking, but her curiousity has been provoked.
===
[pure considering the merits of the last option, 'not enough info']
i think though that 'not enough info' is quite plausible. and consistent with what you suggest.
that is, there is [hypothetically, considering this option] nothing about pat that would preclude her from doing sm, being a pet, etc--and getting the usual 'benefits'/satisfactions that others do, the ones fit for the vocation. the personality i sketched is, so to say, neither here nor there, as regard to her benefit or lack thereof from an SM relationship. this is the position of some in the Type A thread.
(type A may or may not be correlated [positively or negatively] with 'submission.')
as i put it above, there is no sign that Pat has any pathology or "problem" in her mind or personality. she's just somewhat more compliant and subservient than some women, in our culture, now, find appealing for themselves. hence [hypothetically, according to this option] her consent, assuming she gets into some sessions as a 'pet,' is not vitiated [or made questionable] by the facts proposed; IOW it's a valid choice, that cannot be invalidated by appeal to 'universal standards' allegedly going beyond personal prefs.
-----
Last edited:
