True Nature of Surrender

[greystardust]

I have been wondering about this. It was always a fantasy of mine to be dominated for mutual pleasure by a sexually powerful woman. I haven't found her (yet). I have found myself though, in a dominant role at various times.

I was reading Jack London's White Fang, and came across this paragraph, which is beauty in itself:

Having learned to snuggle, White Fang was guilty of it often. It was the final word. He could not go beyond it. The one thing of which he had always been particularly jealous was his head. He had always disliked to have it touched. It was the Wild in him, the fear of hurt and of the trap, that had given rise to the panicky impulses to avoid contacts. It was the mandate of his instincts that the head must be free. And now, with the love-master, his snuggling was the deliberate act of putting himself into a position of hopeless helplessness. It was an expression of perfect confidence, of absolute self-surrender, as though he said, “I put myself into thy hands. Work thou thy will with me."

I'm interested to know if the need for submission and dominance is:
- sexual in nature (the most intense pleasure, release)? or
- emotional in nature (the loss of control, discovery of trust)? or
- some hybrid of the two, if in fact, they can even be separated?

 

[girly_dew]

together

They are a hybrid of the two. Yes they can be separated. It happens all the time in life's many complicated situations. But, they are best when together, much more than the sum of their parts.

 

[greystardust]

Yes, I suppose everything is possible when the future is unknown. What you said Girlydew, about being more than the sum of the parts is fascinating. If (when) that happens then 1+1 no longer = 2...then logic and science can no longer explain life. Then magic unfolds. I can't say I've had this sexually, but it seems it must exist.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

First of all, that's a lovely quote. In my own relationships, the metaphor of a 'tamed wolf' would be particularly apt.

I think you'll find that of course 'submission' is different for everyone. And as girly_dew said, while emotional and sexual submission can be separated, they are often joined in our need to experience these things.

But just to be completely facetious, I'll indulge in a little labeling here, even though I don't think labeling is useful past a certain very basic point.

I'd say that if you want to discuss activities that are 'submissive' in nature, such as being flogged and tied up, having your physical power taken away, being tortured, that sort of thing, that what you're basically talking about is generally referred to as 'bottoming' rather than submission.

What I've seen as the differentiation (and mind you, I'm only one voice here) is that a lot of people call themselves 'submissive' but are actually 'bottoms', that is they desire a particular set of activities within a scene but aren't necessarily into the emotional dynamic of surrendering their will and their spiritual self to the desires and will of another person.

That's a horse that has been beaten nearly to death on every kink board in the world, so I won't go too far into it. But it has certainly become a much more important distinction in my own world lately, and so I thought I'd offer it to you as food for thought.

good luck with your search.

 

[greystardust]

Thanks for the further detail Bijou. (I had a look at your bio, and you are quite unpredictable.)

I'd have to say that there is a hybrid of submissive and bottom in me (and a hybrid of dominator and top as well). I wouldn't want to submit to another's will, unless it were the same as mine. So perhaps there is more bottom and top, than sub and dom, intended in my initial question.

As for the wolf White Fang, I now understand that to be submission, and not bottom, thanks to you.

 

[Homburg]

What I've seen as the differentiation (and mind you, I'm only one voice here) is that a lot of people call themselves 'submissive' but are actually 'bottoms', that is they desire a particular set of activities within a scene but aren't necessarily into the emotional dynamic of surrendering their will and their spiritual self to the desires and will of another person.

*holds up a lighter*


Not the only voice.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

*holds up a lighter*


Not the only voice.

aww, thanks. Today is a good day for me to be validated. I need it.

Boy, has life taught me the difference between those two things lately. mostly in a good way, but I find I'm a teency bit more patient with the 'labeling' discussions now, having had to come to a better understanding of the strong differences between the two groups.



i have one of each...

 

[00Syd]

What I've seen as the differentiation (and mind you, I'm only one voice here) is that a lot of people call themselves 'submissive' but are actually 'bottoms', that is they desire a particular set of activities within a scene but aren't necessarily into the emotional dynamic of surrendering their will and their spiritual self to the desires and will of another person.

*holds up a lighter*


Not the only voice.

I agree that submissives and bottoms are two different things, but I also see the D/s and top/bottom orientations as a spectrum (just like everything else - gender, sexual orientation, etc). Submissive and bottom are just two ends of a four-ended (possibly more-ended) spectrum that includes dom, sub, top, and bottom, and I think it's possible to land anywhere in between those labels. Some people land firmly on the side of submissive, others firmly on the side of bottom, and others (like me) float somewhere in the middle.

 

[Homburg]

I agree that submissives and bottoms are two different things, but I also see the D/s and top/bottom orientations as a spectrum (just like everything else - gender, sexual orientation, etc). Submissive and bottom are just two ends of a four-ended (possibly more-ended) spectrum that includes dom, sub, top, and bottom, and I think it's possible to land anywhere in between those labels. Some people land firmly on the side of submissive, others firmly on the side of bottom, and others (like me) float somewhere in the middle.

I subscribe to the spectrum theory as well, and have said so in the past. The importance here, is the initial step of acknowledging that "bottom" does not automatically mean "submissive, and a vice versa, and "top" does not always mean "dominant".

And this does not even get into switches, or generally kinky people.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Indeed, Syd, I hope I didn't make it sound like you had to be in one category or another. Most people are a mix of both.

Ironically, they seem to be falling quite firmly into one of the two decisive ends of the scale in my own life right now. A true submissive who's really not that much of a bottom, and a fierce bottom who's not the least bit submissive. I realize that's more the exception than the rule. I think it's the Buddha's way of teaching me to pay more attention to labels.

I dunno, last I checked the library wasn't working, but there have to be some stunning old threads that track through these terms and categories in absolutely obsessive detail. I didn't want to reinvent the wheel in here, since I know it's been discussed quite thoroughly elsewhere. But hey, we can always use a little review...

 

[00Syd]

I subscribe to the spectrum theory as well, and have said so in the past. The importance here, is the initial step of acknowledging that "bottom" does not automatically mean "submissive, and a vice versa, and "top" does not always mean "dominant".

And this does not even get into switches, or generally kinky people.

I don't disagree!

And, IMO, people who we call switches and "generally kinky" just fall somewhere in the middle of the same spectrum that all tops, doms, bottoms, and subs and everyone else does.

 

[Raidho]

I'd say that if you want to discuss activities that are 'submissive' in nature, such as being flogged and tied up, having your physical power taken away, being tortured, that sort of thing, that what you're basically talking about is generally referred to as 'bottoming' rather than submission.

What I've seen as the differentiation (and mind you, I'm only one voice here) is that a lot of people call themselves 'submissive' but are actually 'bottoms', that is they desire a particular set of activities within a scene but aren't necessarily into the emotional dynamic of surrendering their will and their spiritual self to the desires and will of another person.

As someone merely nosing around and attempting to satisfy a bit of curiosity, this is the best differentiation between a bottom and a submissive that I've ever heard.

I've often wondered what the difference was, but have seen some proclaim their "sameness" while others said they were different, but no explanation.

Thanks for posting this.

 

[celticsunspiral]

I'm interested to know if the need for submission and dominance is:
- sexual in nature (the most intense pleasure, release)? or
- emotional in nature (the loss of control, discovery of trust)? or
- some hybrid of the two, if in fact, they can even be separated?

For me it is a mix of both but the emotional (mental) is the largest slice. Yes, I throughly enjoy the sexual aspect but the true reason is more mental. The release of control and serving someone Else's needs.

What I've seen as the differentiation (and mind you, I'm only one voice here) is that a lot of people call themselves 'submissive' but are actually 'bottoms', that is they desire a particular set of activities within a scene but aren't necessarily into the emotional dynamic of surrendering their will and their spiritual self to the desires and will of another person.

I label myself as submissive but right now I am a bottom, delving into the SM area. Really waiting on finding the person that I want/can submit to. I have found a few I feel comfortable doing a scene with but would they be a lt D/s relationship, NO. Eventually I would like to find someone I can have it all with but I am being patient in the meantime, ..lol well at least trying to.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

What I've seen as the differentiation (and mind you, I'm only one voice here) is that a lot of people call themselves 'submissive' but are actually 'bottoms', that is they desire a particular set of activities within a scene but aren't necessarily into the emotional dynamic of surrendering their will and their spiritual self to the desires and will of another person.

On a good day, I tend to think of myself as submissive. On others, simply a bottom with a nurturing fetish.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Jesus, if I'd known I was going to be quoted I'd have paid more attention to my punctuation. heh.

I've learned a lot about this differentiation lately. It has been very handy for me to separate the two areas in terms of "activity" and "mindset". With the immense amount that has been written about all of this, I'm not sure it can be this simple, but let me at least offer the model I've developed lately.

If you're talking about activity within your play, the scale that applies is generally topping and bottoming.

If you're talking about an attitude, a philosophy, a question of will and role, then you're more likely talking about dominance and submission.

While this may be oversimplified, I think it can really help when one is trying to figure out one's own desires or the desires of a partner.

Someone who has a strong attitude of submission, who wants to be ruled by the desire or will of his lover, could be said to be submissive, regardless of the activities he wants to engage in, which may even be purely vanilla or vaguely toppy. By the same token, someone who arrives with a laundry list of wonderfully painful or restrictive things they want to have done to them, but who also wants total charge over what happens to them and how, can be considered a dominant bottom.

Once you separate them into two different assessments, I think you end up getting away from the ubiquitous debate about "are you a submissive or a bottom" and all that jazz. One can say both, or it varies on both scales, or I'm a 5 on one and a 9 on the other, or whatever. I know for most people it even varies day to day. On any given day, I may feel like topping someone without feeling particularly dominant, or vice versa.

It's all fun, so whatever.

 

[MasterPhoenix]

Surrender is as the very core of submission.

 

[greystardust]

Does broaden the horizons though..."dominant bottom" (as bijou introduced) or submissive top. So, submission without surrender may not be true submission, but rather a swift dip to the bottom and thereafter a rise to the meniscus again?

That ant really does freak me out Mphoenix lol

 

[Arkhilokhus]

I've been away for quite awhile, and I still don't have regular access to the internet, but I can't resist complicating the discussion here a little.

If you're talking about activity within your play, the scale that applies is generally topping and bottoming.

If you're talking about an attitude, a philosophy, a question of will and role, then you're more likely talking about dominance and submission.

In terms of scale, I would rather say that there are (at least) four: one going from totally submissive to not submissive at all, another measuring dominance, a third for toppiness, and a fourth for bottoms. So, for instance, a given individual might strongly enjoy both topping and bottoming.

As regards the original topic of the role of surrender, I think submissiveness involves an enjoyment of surrender. Actually surrendering is, in my experience, something else again, and a rather continuous, and continuously increasing, process.

But I'm just a farmhand from Texas, so what do I know?

 

[00Syd]

As regards the original topic of the role of surrender, I think submissiveness involves an enjoyment of surrender. Actually surrendering is, in my experience, something else again, and a rather continuous, and continuously increasing, process.

But I'm just a farmhand from Texas, so what do I know?

Holy shit epiphany.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Does broaden the horizons though..."dominant bottom" (as bijou introduced) or submissive top. So, submission without surrender may not be true submission, but rather a swift dip to the bottom and thereafter a rise to the meniscus again?

That ant really does freak me out Mphoenix lol

I have to say I think Phoenix is oversimplifying a bit, and if we were to go there we'd have to define a bunch of terms like submission and surrender until everyone is too bored to play semantics any more.

Not that semantic play isn't fun, at least to a certain point.

In terms of scale, I would rather say that there are (at least) four: one going from totally submissive to not submissive at all, another measuring dominance, a third for toppiness, and a fourth for bottoms. So, for instance, a given individual might strongly enjoy both topping and bottoming.

Well sure. I'm into making things more complicated, so I'm okay with four different scales.

I see this as only of limited use, in the sense that one might use this to understand a little bit about someone that you've just met or to describe yourself to someone, or or one might use these scales to describe one's headspace on any given night. It's certainly not as useful for describing anything long-term, or a truly intimate partnership. That would require a lot more complexity.

So in that sense you could stay with two scales.

Example: I might say to someone I just met, who wants to know What My Deal is, that on a Top and Bottom scale I am sexually toppy most of the time, like 85%, but enjoy being a bottom very occasionally with someone I trust. I might also say that I'm extremely 'Dominant' within my sexuality, and not in the least submissive in that sense. That would tell them that they could perhaps indulge in certain activities, but that, for example, I was never going to be interested in being bossed around.

If I communicated those things to someone I was just meeting, they'd get a pretty fair idea of what I'm like, without having to go into a huge amount of detail.

Similarly, on any given night, I could say I was in the mood to be a bottom, but also clarify that I wasn't feeling the least bit 'submissive'. Or I might use it as a caution: I'm feeling particularly Dommy tonight, so expect to get bossed around more than usual. I think using the terms that way would be a reasonable shorthand for someone who wanted to assess or describe the places they wanted to go on a particular night.

But I'm just a farmhand from Texas, so what do I know?

Quite a bit these days, last I checked. ahem.

 

[reneemyrenee]

Identity

Fulfilling my submissive nature is knowing my true nature. Not a need, to me. just ME...... but I don't allow it much any more.

HI
Renee

 

[LadyTuesday]

Well that opened up my eyes and answered some question that had been in the back of my mind. I liked that everyone has their own way of defining their preferences and yet it still connects and adds layers to the overall picture. Thanks!

 

[greystardust]

Fulfilling my submissive nature is knowing my true nature. Not a need, to me. just ME...... but I don't allow it much any more.

HI
Renee

to know your true nature reneemyrenee (that's a lovely nom de plum) is awesome, with a big emphasis on the awe. must be tough to know it and not allow it, but tougher still for those (...we) who can't say we know our true nature

thanks to you also

 

[reneemyrenee]

hmmmm

is grey """" a male female or dom or sub? mees wants to know

 

[greystardust]

is grey """" a male female or dom or sub? mees wants to know

...an' knows you shall

Grey is male, and a dominant bottom, submissive top (just don't know myself a.k.a. complicated)