What makes a good/worthy sub?

[DeepGreenEyes]

I bonded with someone the second day in kindergarten over our mutual love of The Cosby Show and mutual knowledge of the current toilet paper commercials. We were good friends for a long time. If only I could make friends so easily nowadays though.

Sometimes, though, don't you find that an appreciation of the same random crap often signals something else, such as a shared or complementary outlook on life?

this is pure genious.

Hey, weren't you in my second-grade class?

 

[jenniferbaby]

Sometimes, though, don't you find that an appreciation of the same random crap often signals something else, such as a shared or complementary outlook on life?

Certainly. What I learned that day was that when the conversation "flows" with someone, it's a precious thing and should be held onto as long as possible. It was my first time experiencing that kind of magic with someone. It almost didn't matter what we were talking about, just that we were talking and having fun. The conversation was the vehicle for connecting something inside of us that we couldn't really name.

Of course I didn't know any of that at the time--all I knew was I had found a friend that liked The Cosby Show and watching toilet paper commercials.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Certainly. What I learned that day was that when the conversation "flows" with someone, it's a precious thing and should be held onto as long as possible. It was my first time experiencing that kind of magic with someone. It almost didn't matter what we were talking about, just that we were talking and having fun. The conversation was the vehicle for connecting something inside of us that we couldn't really name.

Well said.

Of course I didn't know any of that at the time--all I knew was I had found a friend that liked The Cosby Show and watching toilet paper commercials.

Ahhh, the simple things.

 

[Sweetdaisymae]

In our relationship we value each other, the contributions we each make, my submission pleases him, but so does my success at work and in other areas, i try to make him proud of me by being successful in what I do.
We communicate, he listens to me and I to him, and i happily follow his instructions.
My worth, I think, is that I make him happy in and out of bed (I hope) and he makes me happy.

 

[R_Falcoln]

*raises eyebrow*
Um... excuse me?

Simply because I am submissive, my WILL, NEEDS and IDENTITY are LESS than my Lover's? Seriously?

This sort of attitude drives me absolutely batty.

Please expound and explain exactly why a pyl's needs, will, choices or identity aren't as important as a PYL's. (pyl = submissive type/PYL = Dominant type)

Now I remember why I don't post much.

Why people attempt to turn these discussions into debates is quite beyond Me. If you think this means I can't defend My position? you're absolutely right. These things are inherently subjective. How could I, or anyone, defend such a position to someone who doesn't agree with the premises? It's not unlike discussing which religion is best. To attempt to refute the Bible or the Koran with reference to each other is pointless, as each is its own evidence for its own conclusion.

*shrugs*

My answer is there. Whether or not anyone agrees....I really don't care, honestly. Nor do I expect anyone particularly cares what I have to say, though obviously someone did enough to reply directly to My post.

I felt it needed to be said, I said it. I make no pretense to it being a "right" answer in some objective sense. It is a matter of philosophical choice. The most the original poster will get is a series of notions or ideas. Which is probably the point.

-Mr. Falcoln

 

[chy_girl]

In the abstract, I would simply say that the only general statement that can be made is that a sub girl has to be, well, submissive. That term can have many more specific definitions but generally speaking she has to see herself as, in a sense, lesser than her Master or Dom or Husband or Sir or Daddy or whatever it is the Dominant Male half of the relationship is called.

I don't think of myself as a lesser than either of the men I'm involved with, submission or no. Do I generally take a lot of crap from people before my cork pops? Yes, but my ignition line is set farther back and always has been. God help the person who pushes me across it though. And if someone wants to get me to the fireworks stage right this second, try treating me like a second class citizen or being a misogynistic bastard.

Not lesser as a person. But rather that her will is lesser, and her needs are lesser, that her identity is lesser, that she and her will and her identity are subordinate to His.

Uh, huh. That's not how that works in my own little BDSM world.

Any man who is given the privilege of my total submission had better damned well understand that I am of equal value. He also better understand the sheer enormity of the gift he's being given.

My will is not lesser, my needs are lesser, my identity is not lesser, and given the fact that will, need and identity are very large parts of my submissiveness there sure as hell isn't anything lesser about any of it.

Do I choose to submit to the will of my Dom? Yes. Do I allow his physical needs to become a priority? Yes. Do I allow the bitchy, ice queen the world tends to see fall back and give priority to the much softer underbelly of who I am? Yes. And they are very special gifts to him that he better treat with the respect and honor they deserve.

A Man who's worth the time of day will meet His little one's needs, will allow her some choices, and will not forcibly rob her of her identity the same way an abused will. But that doesn't mean her needs, her will, her choices, or her identity are as "important" in the relationship as are His.

A man who's worth the time of day will understand his subs needs, even if she may not at the time. He will honor and not abuse the fact that she is placing enough faith in his strength of character to hand him nearly all of her choice during the appropriate times. And I would hope that he would understand the sheer fucking idiocy of taking the identity that holds her submissive nature.

Need, will, choice, identity, wants, desires, fears, insecurities... They are all part of the package I present to my Dom when I kneel before him. If he acts appropriately and gives me and my submission the respect due, then I'd go through nearly anything to please him.

If he doesn't, he better be wearing a cast iron cup because the kitty has claws.
(Admittedly, ^that part took me a minute to learn though.)

This generality, however, makes little sense in the abstract. It matters only when it is applied in the context of a relationship, and every relationship is different.

*snort*
Frankly, I've found little in BDSM and submission that does make much sense in the abstract... especially if you've never had the concept-specific switch flipped before.

 

[BiBunny]

Simply because I am submissive, my WILL, NEEDS and IDENTITY are LESS than my Lover's? Seriously?

It may not actually be that way, but it damn sure feels that way sometimes. *Shrug*

 

[intothewoods]

Now I remember why I don't post much.

Why people attempt to turn these discussions into debates is quite beyond Me. If you think this means I can't defend My position? you're absolutely right. These things are inherently subjective. How could I, or anyone, defend such a position to someone who doesn't agree with the premises? It's not unlike discussing which religion is best. To attempt to refute the Bible or the Koran with reference to each other is pointless, as each is its own evidence for its own conclusion.

*shrugs*

My answer is there. Whether or not anyone agrees....I really don't care, honestly. Nor do I expect anyone particularly cares what I have to say, though obviously someone did enough to reply directly to My post.

I felt it needed to be said, I said it. I make no pretense to it being a "right" answer in some objective sense. It is a matter of philosophical choice. The most the original poster will get is a series of notions or ideas. Which is probably the point.

-Mr. Falcoln

It's not fun to feel jumped on, but this is a discussion board.

 

[rida]

I'm not lesser than any men or women I enter a relationship with.
However it might appear so from an outside eye.

In my marriage as there are commitments that supersede my Husband's wishes, his needs cannot be prioritized at all times. However, as the submissive in the marriage, I do put his desires and wishes and needs before mine. That is just the way it is. Not because my needs are not important, but because his needs are more important to me than mine.

He is however very mindful of my own needs, and that is why our marriage is strong and he will never purposefully negate me my own desires and wants, on top on my needs.


With the Sadist, as it is purely a power exchange relationship (emotion notwithstanding), his needs, his desires, his satisfaction are the only ones that matter. That is the way it is.

The understanding between us is that, when I show up I relinquish any say in what happens: I'm just for his pleasure (sexual or not).

My needs? My wants? My identity? My will?
He is not going to destroy me. But when we are together, unless they bend to his needs, his wants, his identity and his will, I'm useless to him.

Not all PYL/pyl dynamics see the pyl's submission as a gift. Sometimes it is seen by the PYL as a given right. And sometime the pyl would not want it any other way.

 

[satindesire]

I can't agree that a Dom should ever feel that his sub is 'subhuman' in some way. If s/he's not important, that's not much of a relationship, no matter if it's kinked or vanilla.

Submissive does not equal abused doormat.

*shrug*

 

[YourCaptor]

I can't agree that a Dom should ever feel that his sub is 'subhuman' in some way. If s/he's not important, that's not much of a relationship, no matter if it's kinked or vanilla.

Submissive does not equal abused doormat.

*shrug*

What if she's subhuman, but still important and loved?

 

[satindesire]

What if she's subhuman, but still important and loved?

I think your definition and mine are different, then.

I mean subhuman in the context that the sub is not deserving of an opinion, of their own wants and needs, and their own decisions AT ALL. They are not WORTH human treatment.

If my Dom ever told me that I was "lesser" I would be crushed, totally. And it would end the relationship right then and there. Just because I have a certain sexuality doesn't mean I'm not human and deserve to be treated as such.

 

[chy_girl]

If my Dom ever told me that I was "lesser" I would be crushed, totally. And it would end the relationship right then and there. Just because I have a certain sexuality doesn't mean I'm not human and deserve to be treated as such.

QFT.

I wonder if there's a way to get that put on a t-shirt in shorthand or tattooed to a forehead? Big sparkly red letter in a flashing sign wouldn't be bad either.

 

[rida]

I think your definition and mine are different, then.

I mean subhuman in the context that the sub is not deserving of an opinion, of their own wants and needs, and their own decisions AT ALL. They are not WORTH human treatment.

If my Dom ever told me that I was "lesser" I would be crushed, totally. And it would end the relationship right then and there. Just because I have a certain sexuality doesn't mean I'm not human and deserve to be treated as such.

I don't think that being negated "an opinion, of their own wants and needs, and their own decisions AT ALL" equates with being treated subhumanly.

Also, I've not seen anybody saying that the pyl cannot have needs or wants or an identity.

R_Falcon expressed that in his case, the submissive "have to see herself as lesser" and more specifically "not as a person" "but her will is lesser, and her needs are lesser, that her identity is lesser, that she and her will and her identity are subordinate to His". He did not say that he sees her as lesser, but that his ideal submissive would be someone that sees herself as such.

At any rate for some pyl, putting it all in their PYL's hand is what they want or need. Even if they do not see themselves as any lesser.

And for some PYL taking it all in their hands, does not mean they consider their pyl a lesser human being.

 

[~Haze~]

I'm one of those hopeless romantics who thinks that their is someone out there for everyone and it's only a matter of time/fate/destiny for those people to come together.

I don't think it's a question of anyone being 'worthy'. If it is, then what makes me worthy of her submission? I mean, generally speaking, I am the one who has to make her feel loved, comforted, safe, secure, wanted until she trusts and respects me enough to offer her submission to me.

It's not an easy process and it's not a quick process, but when all is said and done, I feel like I am the special one because she deemed me worthy of her submission. Something that shouldn't be given lightly and something that I won't accept lightly.

But I have a different definition of submission than those who were bragging near the OP. When I overhear PYL talking about how well their pyl will do anything - I can't help but roll my eyes and walk away - but not before expressing my contempt for those who's brains are still stuck in this pre-pubescent stage of development. Grow the fuck up. Really.

I think the bottom line is... do you make each other happy?

Of course, there is a lot of things that lead to happiness and that changes for different people. For some it's respect, support, encouragement. For others it's someone who can provide security. For others it's sex. For others it simply loving them back. My point is... we all have things that we look for in a pyl/PYL. Once you find someone who satisfies those criteria, it's all about chemistry and simply - making each other happy.

 

[Netzach]

The specifics vary by relationship.

In the abstract, I would simply say that the only general statement that can be made is that a sub girl has to be, well, submissive. That term can have many more specific definitions but generally speaking she has to see herself as, in a sense, lesser than her Master or Dom or Husband or Sir or Daddy or whatever it is the Dominant Male half of the relationship is called.

Not lesser as a person. But rather that her will is lesser, and her needs are lesser, that her identity is lesser, that she and her will and her identity are subordinate to His.

A Man who's worth the time of day will meet His little one's needs, will allow her some choices, and will not forcibly rob her of her identity the same way an abused will. But that doesn't mean her needs, her will, her choices, or her identity are as "important" in the relationship as are His.

This generality, however, makes little sense in the abstract. It matters only when it is applied in the context of a relationship, and every relationship is different.

-Mr. Falcoln

The only objection I have is "needs." I operate from a position of inferiority/superiority with my slave. We are both kinked around that concept in relation to each other, and it feeds the dynamic. But needs? No. When you talk about human *needs* you are talking about the point where you get your ass humble and listen.

My *wants* trump my slaves's wants. My slave's *needs* trump my wants. My needs and my slave's needs are equally valid, and need to be navigated in the name of the relationship.

I don't believe there's really another way to do that and have a viable relationship. Even if you might say otherwise in the name of instilling awe, I think a successful relationship involves some deference of what the Dominant wants at any given moment to what the submissive needs or is actually capable of.

 

[~Haze~]

Now I remember why I don't post much.

On behalf of the entire board, I'd like to thank you for not posting much. Although, as I wind up to respond to this post, I'm beginning to think your frequent posting would result in hours and hours of entertaining responses.

Why people attempt to turn these discussions into debates is quite beyond Me. If you think this means I can't defend My position? you're absolutely right. These things are inherently subjective. How could I, or anyone, defend such a position to someone who doesn't agree with the premises? It's not unlike discussing which religion is best. To attempt to refute the Bible or the Koran with reference to each other is pointless, as each is its own evidence for its own conclusion.

Even if it's only opinion, you should defend your position. Like you said, it's subjective, and as long as your state that your post is your opinion, no one can say that you're wrong. We can say that we disagree with you. We can say that you're thinking is juvenile and misguided. We can say that we agree with you. That's what we're here for. To discuss such subjective topics until we convince each other that we're right and they're wrong - or until we can feel satisfied enough to part ways respecting each others differing opinions.

But to compare your post to the Bible or the Koran and then walk away is moronic and IMO, it's only going to be legitimate grounds to dismiss whatever you say because you're a moron.

I felt it needed to be said, I said it. I make no pretense to it being a "right" answer in some objective sense. It is a matter of philosophical choice. The most the original poster will get is a series of notions or ideas. Which is probably the point.

-Mr. Falcoln

Clarify your position. There's some legitimacy there. Not that I agree with it. But it's worthy of discussion. Don't be such a wimp. State your position and stand tall. Have some backbone and convince us or be convinced otherwise. That's what we're here for. Tucking tail and running is - again, in my opinion - just another reason for people to dismiss your post and your opinion.

 

[where]

.....

 

[ataxia.girl]

If you get something from the pyl you are willing to put up with their bullshit to get then they are worth the effort. If you don't they aren't.

 

[00Syd]

I certainly have needs and wants and a will, and often in my mind, they are much more pressing needs and wants than Seb's, and my will is strong as hell, but in the grand scheme of things, they are actually lesser, simply because he's bigger and stronger than me. But that's just how our relationship has been working lately (most of the time, anyway , nothing is absolute).

I can dig in my heels all I want, I can try to make what I want to happen happen, but at the end of the day he can pretty much make me do whatever he wants because he's stronger than me. So while I have needs and wants, and he certainly pays attention to them, his needs and wants usually end up trumping mine by the simple application of brute force. In my mind that renders my wants as "lesser than," no matter how much I might fight against it.

 

[~Haze~]

I certainly have needs and wants and a will, and often in my mind, they are much more pressing needs and wants than Seb's, and my will is strong as hell, but in the grand scheme of things, they are actually lesser, simply because he's bigger and stronger than me. But that's just how our relationship has been working lately (most of the time, anyway , nothing is absolute).

I can dig in my heels all I want, I can try to make what I want to happen happen, but at the end of the day he can pretty much make me do whatever he wants because he's stronger than me. So while I have needs and wants, and he certainly pays attention to them, his needs and wants usually end up trumping mine by the simple application of brute force. In my mind that renders my wants as "lesser than," no matter how much I might fight against it.

But that's a choice... that's your choice that you make, and I'm sure it's part of what you want.

You know that you want his will/wants/desire to be satisfied and you indulge them. It's not in lieu of your own happiness. That's what makes you happy. Furthermore, you want for him to impose those desires upon you.

It's control. You give him that control and give him the responsibility of having power over your... being.

That's part of the allure (on both sides) and a main part of why what brings us all together.

 

[R_Falcoln]

I can't agree that a Dom should ever feel that his sub is 'subhuman' in some way. If s/he's not important, that's not much of a relationship, no matter if it's kinked or vanilla.

Submissive does not equal abused doormat.

*shrug*

Of course this is not what I said but...

*shrugs*

This is not an age of fine distinctions, and I need to get used to that fact. I've been around far-too-long to not expect.....odd reactions.

-Mr. Falcoln

 

[Primalex]

chy,

what kind of information are you looking for?

If you are asking for the traits a sub should possess to maintain a relationship, then this consists of two completely different parts, even in a TPE relationship:

Traits required for a successful (vanilla) relationship.
Traits required for a successful D/s relationship.

Those are different sets that overlap - and both of course heavily biased. Do you want to know just about the traits for a sub, about the intersection of those traits or the union?

I will try to explain this further.

For example, for a vanilla relationship:
She needs to be physically attractive in my biased point of view.

She needs to be able to accept that I have a different opinion on certain topics. One real life example: My point of view about the justice system and the point of view of my wife are completely opposed. We would be very entertaining on TV. The only reason this works is because we both have the traits that allow us to just accept a different opinion without insisting to change it.

For a D/s relationship those traits are not important. I can and did dominate women that I don't find physically attractive or who would not accept my point of view on certain things. This kind of relationship can last very long, too - at least the longest one I had was for about 5 years.

For a D/s relationship I expect that my commands are respected. (I refrain from the term "being completed" for various reasons that take too long to explain now). I expect this in a vanilla relationship, too, but to a much lesser degree. You could say this trait sits on the border between vanilla and D/s required traits or within the intersection.

For a D/s relationship I don't expect her to attempt to challenge me, she basically needs to lack the bratty gene. This isn't a requirement for a vanilla relationship though. I don't mind per se the challenge or being challenged, not even in a long term relationship. But this is then outside the scope of the D/s dynamic. I try to explain this further:

It happens that you want to go to the cinema and now the big question - which movie?
a) You can decide.
b) You can ask her.

So, in a pure D/s relationship, I don't expect a complaint for a).
In a vanilla relationship, I would expect a complaint for a) (as it's a well known fact that guys and girls NEVER choose the same movie).

Now being married to a sub, without TPE, I expect a mix - she can accept it or not and of course this does depend on her mood - we are all driven by hormones. And of course it depends on my mood (and the movie) how I react. The trait that is required now is the same point of view about the amount of D/s within the relationship. If she sees this as bedroom D/s and you don't, you are in trouble now - the same of course, if it's the opposite: If she expects that you decide because you are the Dom and you think the D/s is merely for getting her to swallow, then this is as troublesome.

Hmm.. I've written now so much that I actually lost any idea if it's still helpful or just very confusing rambling. I guess you'll tell me.

(I know, the last example is able to raise a lot of discussion. I'm not trying to say that subdueing or being bratty is not or never part of D/s relationships or that a sub must not have her own will. If you want to discuss this though, then first come up with a better example to explain what I'm trying to explain, I'll just replace this last example then and we refrain from the discussion.)

 

[satindesire]

I don't think that being negated "an opinion, of their own wants and needs, and their own decisions AT ALL" equates with being treated subhumanly.

Then you and I will just have to disagree.

 

[chy_girl]

chy,

what kind of information are you looking for?

Anything that will help clarify the mud in my head, really.

There are so many different components to this and so many different parts that overlap that I feel like I'm running blind.

As far as the characteristics of a good sub goes, surely there must be some. Anyone on the street can come up with three characteristics of a good parent, a good doctor, a good friend... but what are the characteristics of a good sub?

Is it the ability to fully and hand over that part of myself, fully and without reserve, to a man who I have faith to Dom me? Is it the willingness to take pain? The ability to let go of who I am in the vanilla world and immerse myself in his pleasure? The willingness to be pushed as close to the edge as I can without falling?

Sometimes, after certain conversations, I wonder if perhaps my views of submission aren't skewed... if maybe it isn't simply submission but something else that I don't know the name for.

In recent off the board conversations I'd mentioned that when I totally submit - the go limp, roll over and present your tummy submit - that I'm trusting the Dom with a piece of my whole, a piece of who I truly am: mind, body, and spirit. The response 98% of the time is 'then you must love the Dom.' I don't, actually, but they can't understand that there is a difference between love and the needed respect and regard to sub to that level. Is this a characteristic of a sub, good or not, or is it something else?

Is the inability to separate my submissiveness from who I am in my heart of hearts, the inability to take it off and put it on like a shirt a characteristic of a sub, or is it a characteristic that goes by degrees or is it simply an over-excited noobie in need of tempering?

This is truly one of those times where I can't decide if my Virgo tendency to pick apart every detail is a benefit or a detriment.
*sigh*

Either way, I suppose the answer to what I'm looking for is 'I don't exactly know yet, this just seemed like the logical place to start.' It's one of those things that I'll know it when I see it. :S