Article: The Healthy Female Submissive

[mylaceratedheart]

I don't see the correlation between highly socially sensitive people and submissive leanings. I've enjoyed service from people who really have to have my moods and drives carefully and gently explained and people who are so intuitive they freak me out. I think the only necessity for being submissive is being submissive. For thousands of reasons per person.

In my view, the article errs most significantly in asserting that submissive = one who needs to be molded by a parental, or pseudo-parental, figure, even as an adult.

In retrospect, it is a rather simplistic view of submissive types and I'm sure squillions of sub women could read it and say 'bullshit.'

Nevertheless, the little passage I highlighted resonated deeply with me.

I don't feel I need a 'pseudo-parental figure' in my life to call the shots and protect me from myself. Having said that, I have been pre-programmed for years on end to yield, to surrender, to obey and not to question. That can leave some people with an emotional handicap that leads them into further abuse. That was certainly true for me. These days, I own my own business and am an independent person. I don't let everyone I interact with walk over me, with friends and acquaintances I'm not passive or giving to the point of self harm. I'm currently seeking a playpartner and I will do that on my own terms and ensure my needs are met as well as his. In those areas of my life I am not especially vulnerable, not emotionally limping or falling behind.

I do think though that when it comes to love and long term relationships, I have the potential and the predetermination to give too much, to mould myself into whatever he wants in the desperate hope that he'll love me despite my past. Some men are very funny about child abuse. Either they want to know all the details and then can never erase them from their mind or they're accusatory and ask to what degree I enjoyed it, if I ever came, why I didn't fight back, why I was so weak. These are not healthy conversations for me to have and they have seriously scarred me in the past. Many men simply cannot compute the psychological manipulation and torture that go into making a child a sexual outlet for years on end. The lengths that a person will go to to avoid having an abused child rear its head and wreck their life.

A few short years ago, I did not merely have low self esteem, I lacked it completely. The shame and guilt I carried everywhere I went hampered every life choice I made and therefore the pattern repeated again and again. I felt like a clockwork doll, destined to make the same masochistic choices and orchestrate my own demise until someone finally managed to kill me. It took me a few years to get myself off that merry go round and now I am years behind everyone else, only just beginning to understand who I might have been. Who I could be if I am determined enough to reprogramme myself with no manual.

In relationships I have always been a pleaser, a giver, service oriented and unselfish to the point of total self neglect. I can moderate this, change my ways, become more self aware and set limits on what I'm prepared to give and to yield. I can never change who I am at my core though and I do feel that will need mitigating and complementing by a dominant man who understands how vulnerable I am in this area and helps me to compromise and to have my own needs met as well as his. I'm fairly confident that I'm a painslut in the making and that I can find the same blissful psychological release in being hurt by a sadist as I used to find in self harm. As I move ever further from who I used to be, who me forced me to become, these impulses will become more positive and more firmly within the realm of sexual/emotional enjoyment. They are coping strategies but they're mine and I believe they will work for me if I pay enough attention to my choices and motivations at this key time. I have simply not been moulded for conventional, equal relationships. I cannot be content, satisfied or secure in one. I accept that now and this is my plan Z.

Sorry for the tangent, it was cathartic to write this.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I always found the Jon Jacobs "I am your dom and your shrink" approach to be sketchy, dubious and creepy, although I can see the attraction.

*slight hijack*

Jacobs just thought he knew it all...he wanted to be EVERYone's shrink. back in the day he and polly were determined to "rescue" me from my Master. he would send me passionate emails saying assuring me that it was not my fault...after all, i was young and lost, being brainwashed by my evil abusive Master. but not to worry because he, Jon Jacobs, would show me the proper way. he would also help me to physically leave my Master, he'd come up and simply take me away. what was amazing was that he actually had the balls to send emails to my Master as well, spelling out for him all the ways in which he was straying from the true and correct path, and how until he learned he was not fit to have a slave, lmbo.

and why did they feel i was being abused and heading down a disastrous path? was it the typical stuff....because we believe in absolute slavery? because we don't engage in bdsm activities or follow its mantra? because he beats me with hands and feet instead of whips and floggers? because i was kept fairly isolated from the outside world? nope. it was all because my Master has always had me sexually service other men. according to Jacobs, this was the most deplorable, despicable, un-Masterly-like practice ever. sadly, he was never able to get me to see the light, lol.

he passed away a while back didn't he?

 

[ownedsubgal]

as far as the article, i think it speaks more to personality-type submissives than to those whose submissiveness is expressed primarily through their sexuality. and that's where it has its value, because it lets these submissives know that they too have a place in this lifestyle.

i know that as a newbie initially i thought i would encounter many submissives like myself, who could identify with the history of use and abuse, who were easily taken advantage of, who did not submit by choice but more so by instinct or reflex. imagine my surprise when i found the opposite to be true...most submissives i came across could not relate whatsoever to the sort of feelings and internal struggles i would describe. for most, it seemed to be either something that was only triggered in them by that One Special Awesome Person, or a behavior that simply got them off sexually. it was confusing to say the least.

so reading articles like this one, although certainly not perfect, was a big comfort to me and helped me to find my way in my early explorations into the D/s lifestyle. however, even in describing personality-type submissives i believe the article leaves out quite a lot, and i also don't believe that many of the conclusions drawn are accurate. as for the bit about what makes a "healthy" submissive, i think 99% of the traits listed could apply to any and everyone. besides, as Netzach said, not many of us "healthy," at least by society's standards, and some of us aren't really aiming to be.

 

[rosco rathbone]

*slight hijack*

Jacobs just thought he knew it all...he wanted to be EVERYone's shrink. back in the day he and polly were determined to "rescue" me from my Master. he would send me passionate emails saying assuring me that it was not my fault...after all, i was young and lost, being brainwashed by my evil abusive Master. but not to worry because he, Jon Jacobs, would show me the proper way. he would also help me to physically leave my Master, he'd come up and simply take me away. what was amazing was that he actually had the balls to send emails to my Master as well, spelling out for him all the ways in which he was straying from the true and correct path, and how until he learned he was not fit to have a slave, lmbo.

and why did they feel i was being abused and heading down a disastrous path? was it the typical stuff....because we believe in absolute slavery? because we don't engage in bdsm activities or follow its mantra? because he beats me with hands and feet instead of whips and floggers? because i was kept fairly isolated from the outside world? nope. it was all because my Master has always had me sexually service other men. according to Jacobs, this was the most deplorable, despicable, un-Masterly-like practice ever. sadly, he was never able to get me to see the light, lol.

he passed away a while back didn't he?

Well well well.

Were you ever in his chatroom?

 

[ownedsubgal]

oui...stupid move on my part.

 

[SubKekiLee]

I was taken aback by that article so many parts of are me.. who I am...

I loved it so much I read it to Sir...

Thank you Homburg for sharing it

 

[Netzach]

First half

(Society labels rogue actions as sick) + (Society says, “women don’t be submissive”) = (Society says submissive women are sick)

It does????

I think it just says women who are happy being submissive and get OFF on it are sick. I certainly think that the degree to which it tells women not to be submissive is vastly overrated by female submissives who are wrapped up in justifying their "health."

It sure the fuck didn't tell me I'm ok.

 

[Netzach]

oui...stupid move on my part.

That's really too bad, because I know that for a lot of people this was the only legitimizing and valuing that a lot of people saw for their feelings - one of the few places where "doormat" wasn't going to be deployed at a person everywhere she turned.

It's too bad, like most communal SM things, there was an agenda-d underbelly.

 

[00Syd]

This is the sort of thing that if I had read it a year or so ago I would have said "THAT IS SO ME!" because at that point pretty much anytime I read or heard some "submissive trait" I figured that I must be like that. Sort of like magazine quizes, the results can be anything and usually they are vauge enough that you'll say "that is so me" no matter what it says. That's how I reacted to just about anything that talked about submissives or submissiveness, whatever it/they/whatever said, I knew I must be like that.

Now I know that actually I'm not really like that. I am actually kind of selfish. I think about myself a lot. I think about others, of course, and I have a very mothering side, but its not at all to the extent that most people would think of as "submissive." I think about others but usually think about myself first. What does that mean? Doesn't that go against accepted deffinitions of "submissive"? What makes me submissive if not that?

Reading things like this used to make everything clearer, but now they just make things confusing and make me doubt myself.

 

[CutieMouse]

This is the sort of thing that if I had read it a year or so ago I would have said "THAT IS SO ME!" because at that point pretty much anytime I read or heard some "submissive trait" I figured that I must be like that. Sort of like magazine quizes, the results can be anything and usually they are vauge enough that you'll say "that is so me" no matter what it says. That's how I reacted to just about anything that talked about submissives or submissiveness, whatever it/they/whatever said, I knew I must be like that.

Now I know that actually I'm not really like that. I am actually kind of selfish. I think about myself a lot. I think about others, of course, and I have a very mothering side, but its not at all to the extent that most people would think of as "submissive." I think about others but usually think about myself first. What does that mean? Doesn't that go against accepted deffinitions of "submissive"? What makes me submissive if not that?

Reading things like this used to make everything clearer, but now they just make things confusing and make me doubt myself.

It makes you perfectly human, just like everyone else.

 

[girlofurdreams]

You can even test this, its sort of funny. Go into an elevator, and don't turn to face the door. People will wonder what the hell is wrong with you.

LOL!!!

 

[intothewoods]

It does????

I think it just says women who are happy being submissive and get OFF on it are sick. I certainly think that the degree to which it tells women not to be submissive is vastly overrated by female submissives who are wrapped up in justifying their "health."

It sure the fuck didn't tell me I'm ok.

Yep. Funny, I have feminist friends who are all about putting their husband's pleasure and happiness first to ensure a happy marriage. No problem. But getting turned on by submission? EEGADS the perversion!!!

 

[eastern sun]

Sadistic dominants can be assholes. It kind of comes with the territory.

 

[Puman]

Yep. Funny, I have feminist friends who are all about putting their husband's pleasure and happiness first to ensure a happy marriage. No problem. But getting turned on by submission? EEGADS the perversion!!!

LOL. . So true. Very sad. But true.

 

[00Syd]

It makes you perfectly human, just like everyone else.

Sure, but does it make me submissive?

I don't mean to ask you or anyone to help me figure this out right now, because that's really something that only I can do, but I've been feeling very lost in the dark lately and this article just made me feel even more lost.

I think its great that this article resonates positively with so many people, and I know that it would have for me a few years ago, but now it just makes me feel even more confused. Are there other people who contradict what this article says? I find that what this article is saying is so a part of so many people's personal definition of submission (and yes, yes, I know that the only person who's definition matters is my own) that to not relate to it makes me feel very, very lost. What can I point to as evidence of my submissive nature if not that? This article made my already confused thoughts on the matter even more confused.

 

[intothewoods]

Sure, but does it make me submissive?

I don't mean to ask you or anyone to help me figure this out right now, because that's really something that only I can do, but I've been feeling very lost in the dark lately and this article just made me feel even more lost.

I think its great that this article resonates positively with so many people, and I know that it would have for me a few years ago, but now it just makes me feel even more confused. Are there other people who contradict what this article says? I find that what this article is saying is so a part of so many people's personal definition of submission (and yes, yes, I know that the only person who's definition matters is my own) that to not relate to it makes me feel very, very lost. What can I point to as evidence of my submissive nature if not that? This article made my already confused thoughts on the matter even more confused.

It doesn't make you not submissive. It's just one point of view.

 

[00Syd]

It doesn't make you not submissive. It's just one point of view.

Right, I got that. But then what does?

That's what I'm trying to figure out, I guess.

 

[intothewoods]

Right, I got that. But then what does?

That's what I'm trying to figure out, I guess.

I asked this question of myself several times. It depends on your definition of course, but I think JMohegan asked something like, do you feel satisfied in a relationship in which you are deferring to your PYL?

 

[00Syd]

I asked this question of myself several times. It depends on your definition of course, but I think JMohegan asked something like, do you feel satisfied in a relationship in which you are deferring to your PYL?

I don't know. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I think that what the PYL wants me to do is stupid/boring/not what I want and it pisses me off. So, then what?

 

[satindesire]

I don't know. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I think that what the PYL wants me to do is stupid/boring/not what I want and it pisses me off. So, then what?

Be pissed off and do it anyway.

 

[JMohegan]

I don't know. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I think that what the PYL wants me to do is stupid/boring/not what I want and it pisses me off. So, then what?

All people, regardless of relationship flavor, get pissed off at their partners every now and then. That's perfectly normal!

The question is: Overall, are you happy with the arrangement? Comfortable, relaxed, satisfied, and frequently aroused when he's in charge?

Or.... do you think you'd be happier, more satisfied, etc., more often, in a relationship in which negotiation and compromise rule the day?

 

[00Syd]

All people, regardless of relationship flavor, get pissed off at their partners every now and then. That's perfectly normal!

The question is: Overall, are you happy with the arrangement? Comfortable, relaxed, satisfied, and frequently aroused when he's in charge?

Or.... do you think you'd be happier, more satisfied, etc., more often, in a relationship in which negotiation and compromise rule the day?

I don't really know.

 

[JMohegan]

I asked this question of myself several times. It depends on your definition of course, but I think JMohegan asked something like, do you feel satisfied in a relationship in which you are deferring to your PYL?

Are we now on a formal name basis?

And on a related note - the other thread has me confused. Should I now be referring to you as Mrs. Man?

 

[intothewoods]

I don't know. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I think that what the PYL wants me to do is stupid/boring/not what I want and it pisses me off. So, then what?

It may not be a good match. If at the end of my day when I've dealt with work, and have tucked my kid into bed, my PYL tells me I did not report the details of my meal or some other mundane fact quickly enough and therefore should be punished, he is not the one for me, and vice versa. You may be better suited - at this point in your life at least - for someone who is more laid back. Or doesn't order you to do X, which is just the one thing that drives you crazy.

 

[JMohegan]

I don't really know.

Hmm.

Have you talked to him about this? Does he know when, and how often, you get pissed?