a good sub?

[YourCaptor]

I totally disagree, and agree with cat. Human beings may be inconsistent, but they are consistently so. Ok, in all seriousness, people do not change who they are at their core. Everyone may want to better themselves, but most people don't. A person may promise and do all sorts of things in the short term to please their partner, and that goes for vanilla or kink-centric. But to really behave in a way that does not come naturally to you all the time, for a long time? Nah. Not gonna stick. Now, if the pyl wants and requests their PYL's help in achieving some sort of behavior modification, like quitting smoking, or improving their foreign language skills, becoming more organized, etc., that is a scenario that might have more success. Both have to be committed, in other words.

Being hospitable and courteous are basic good manners. Do you mean subserviance or servant-like behavior? Might be fun for a while, but someone who gets no thrill from service will eventually get tired of the "act." Just my opinion.

Yes, people should definitely be who they are, however many of us don't have such a luxury, many are still finding themselves. In this example we are talking about a very specific kind of person, a submissive person who enjoys this kind of thing. Pat does these thing naturally, who are you to say that is wrong. This is why I am eyeing Pat, Pat sounds more likely then most to be into this sort of thing.

Just because Pat follows the will of others does not make Pat a bad sub, for me, it makes Pat a better sub.

You can't compare Pat to yourself, Pat is obviously different, why do you wish to impose your values on Pat?


BeachGurl2, I'll reply to you a little later , I need food and shower right now.

 

[rida]

But this isn't exactly what Pat is doing. She is obeying everyone blindly. She isn't taking into account that there are times she needs to stand up for herself - in public, I mean, not with her Dom. There's a difference between being courteous and a nurturer (which I am by nature, btw) and being a doormat. And that's what I'm not sure we're agreeing on. I am submissive in my personality, which means in most instances, it's fairly obvious that I am submissive if you're paying attention. I tend to 'serve' in most situations. However, I'm standing up for myself if someone cuts me in line, the way it was described earlier with Pat. I'm not going to just say, "oh, okay, I'll go all the way to the back of the line" when that isn't where I belong. The way the description of Pat was laid it, it sounds like she's the kind of person who doesn't speak up when the waitress charges her for food she didn't order. That's not submissive, in my opinion, that's having no will of her own.

I guess I'm just wondering why you wouldn't want your submissive to stand up for herself when you weren't there to do it for her? If your sub were told to go to the back of the line for no reason, would you expect her to just do that? If she received the wrong order at lunch with friends, would you expect her to just eat what's put in front of her or would it be okay for her to ask the waitress to fix the error? I'm not trying to argue with you about it, I'm truly curious as to where you draw the line, if you do draw the line, in her public behavior.

You know, from the above interpretation of the original OP, I have to say that I am much more similar to Pat that I'd like to admit.
If someone cut me in line, I had a hard time telling them anything. With age I got better and I now stand my ground, but as I hate confrontation, if the other person shows belligerence, I just let it go. It is not worth to me to argue.
As for being brought the wrong food, if it is something I like, I usually point out the error but say that it is ok. Now, as I live in a very high custom service oriented country, chances are that I'll get what I ordered anyway and not get charged for the wrong food, even if I eat it.

I hate arguing and making a scene. But I do not consider myself a pushover. I've been risen to respect authority and the elderly but also to think on my own. I'm also lucky that I live in a country were courtesy is the norm and politely pointing out an error in service is always received with an apology and the error being fixed. And impossible requests, are also turned down with an apology.

In relationships too, I do not argue for the sake of argument. But I stand my ground on the few things that are really important to me (and I'll bitch and be a smart ass about the others thou). The rest, I deal with it and accept it for what it is. And even if I am courteous with everybody, and even service oriented (I'll bring you your drink happily), I am not submitting to everybody. Even if you are a friend I like and a Dom or Master, that does not make me submit to you.

ETA: Just because I am submissive, I don't think we have enough info to say anything about Pat.

 

[intothewoods]

Thank you for saying what I was thinking. I was too damned lazy to type it out myself.


Ain't that the truth? Lemme tell you something. I was a directory assistance (411) operator for about a year. A more hellacious job I cannot imagine.

The truth is, nobody, but NOBODY dominates the phone book. We are all slaves to it, asshole that it is.

I you.

And I love you! Lol about 411! Who knew?

Yes, people should definitely be who they are, however many of us don't have such a luxury, many are still finding themselves. In this example we are talking about a very specific kind of person, a submissive person who enjoys this kind of thing. Pat does these thing naturally, who are you to say that is wrong. This is why I am eyeing Pat, Pat sounds more likely then most to be into this sort of thing.

Just because Pat follows the will of others does not make Pat a bad sub, for me, it makes Pat a better sub.

You can't compare Pat to yourself, Pat is obviously different, why do you wish to impose your values on Pat?


BeachGurl2, I'll reply to you a little later , I need food and shower right now.

I thought we had veered away from Pat, but that's all right. I never said Pat would be a bad or good sub, and that her behavior is wrong. I'm saying two things - first, it's not that easy to tell if someone is submissive by their behavior in public life (in my opinion - I know others here disagree) and second, you can't make someone into it if they're just not. So as to Pat, if she's into it, fabulous. If she's not, I disagree that you can just fix her up into the sub of your dreams.

As to finding yourself, we're all finding ourselves. I don't have the luxury of being any more settled than anyone else. But I don't believe we can change the core of who we are. The way you "find yourself" is to put yourself into situations you've never been in before, so you can see how you'll react, feel, etc. You don't fully understand how you'll be in an office, in a marriage, as a parent, in a tragedy, in a crisis, etc., until you are there. So yeah, Pat should give submission a whirl. Maybe she'll love it. And maybe she won't.

 

[BiBunny]

I still say Pat takes out her pent-up day-to-day rage out on male slaves in her basement, tying them spread-eagled to the floor and crushing their balls with her black thigh-high stiletto boots.

 

[YourCaptor]

But this isn't exactly what Pat is doing. She is obeying everyone blindly. She isn't taking into account that there are times she needs to stand up for herself - in public, I mean, not with her Dom. There's a difference between being courteous and a nurturer (which I am by nature, btw) and being a doormat. And that's what I'm not sure we're agreeing on. I am submissive in my personality, which means in most instances, it's fairly obvious that I am submissive if you're paying attention. I tend to 'serve' in most situations. However, I'm standing up for myself if someone cuts me in line, the way it was described earlier with Pat. I'm not going to just say, "oh, okay, I'll go all the way to the back of the line" when that isn't where I belong. The way the description of Pat was laid it, it sounds like she's the kind of person who doesn't speak up when the waitress charges her for food she didn't order. That's not submissive, in my opinion, that's having no will of her own.

I guess I'm just wondering why you wouldn't want your submissive to stand up for herself when you weren't there to do it for her? If your sub were told to go to the back of the line for no reason, would you expect her to just do that? If she received the wrong order at lunch with friends, would you expect her to just eat what's put in front of her or would it be okay for her to ask the waitress to fix the error? I'm not trying to argue with you about it, I'm truly curious as to where you draw the line, if you do draw the line, in her public behavior.

Its not that I don’t want her to stand up for herself, but it is an attractive feature. I think it’s the helplessness, it’s beautiful.

There are infinite kinds of beauty, everyone has their own features. I don’t chose a list of things I want, I look at people, and those that particularly stand out to me I want.

Her public behavior is her public behavior, there is no line, its what she does. I could teach her how to assert that she is not happy, but would that really matter.

Pat is different, probably not the best equipped for current society, but I like Pat anyway.

If you are thinking I like Pat because she gets trampled on by all, that is incorrect. Seeing the innocent get stepped on fuels my anger like few other things. Maybe that’s also why I want Pat, to protect.

Its hard to say, its all more romantic then rational.

 

[YourCaptor]

In relationships too, I do not argue for the sake of argument. But I stand my ground on the few things that are really important to me (and I'll bitch and be a smart ass about the others thou). The rest, I deal with it and accept it for what it is. And even if I am courteous with everybody, and even service oriented (I'll bring you your drink happily), I am not submitting to everybody. Even if you are a friend I like and a Dom or Master, that does not make me submit to you.

That is really hot too.

I disagree that you can just fix her up into the sub of your dreams.

I never meant to make such a point, flaws are what make people, people. I don’t want to create her, I want to mold her.

I still say Pat takes out her pent-up day-to-day rage out on male slaves in her basement, tying them spread-eagled to the floor and crushing their balls with her black thigh-high stiletto boots.

I’m thinking Audition, that movie was so hot. Spoiler

 

[BeachGurl2]

You know, from the above interpretation of the original OP, I have to say that I am much more similar to Pat that I'd like to admit.
If someone cut me in line, I had a hard time telling them anything. With age I got better and I now stand my ground, but as I hate confrontation, if the other person shows belligerence, I just let it go. It is not worth to me to argue.
As for being brought the wrong food, if it is something I like, I usually point out the error but say that it is ok. Now, as I live in a very high custom service oriented country, chances are that I'll get what I ordered anyway and not get charged for the wrong food, even if I eat it.

I hate arguing and making a scene. But I do not consider myself a pushover. I've been risen to respect authority and the elderly but also to think on my own. I'm also lucky that I live in a country were courtesy is the norm and politely pointing out an error in service is always received with an apology and the error being fixed. And impossible requests, are also turned down with an apology.

In relationships too, I do not argue for the sake of argument. But I stand my ground on the few things that are really important to me (and I'll bitch and be a smart ass about the others thou). The rest, I deal with it and accept it for what it is. And even if I am courteous with everybody, and even service oriented (I'll bring you your drink happily), I am not submitting to everybody. Even if you are a friend I like and a Dom or Master, that does not make me submit to you.

ETA: Just because I am submissive, I don't think we have enough info to say anything about Pat.

I'm a bit like that as well. I don't like confrontation. And if I see that the person who cut me in line is one of those who will just be an ass about it, I'll usually let it drop as well. Just as if the waitress brought me something I like anyway, I'd probably say, 'no worries'. But at the same time, if it means something to me, or seems wrong, I will absolutely stand up.

In relationships, I don't argue. But I do stand up for things that are important to me. And I have some definitive lines that I won't cross or allow to be crossed. I won't compromise my value system for anyone. But the person who gets into a relationship with me is someone who knows my value system going into things. So it's only been an issue once.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between picking your battles and blindly accepting everything. In my opinion, anyway. And I think the way the OP has briefly described Pat, my read is that she blindly accepts everything, regardless of whether she should or not. I get the feeling that she doesn't ever stand up for anything. And yes, I realize that she left a physically abusive situation, but my read on that was that she left that to protect her children, not herself. Obviously, there isn't enough information to make any kind of assumption about her being submissive or not. In fact, now that Bunny mentions it, hmmmm. Maybe she does crack a whip.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Its not that I don’t want her to stand up for herself, but it is an attractive feature. I think it’s the helplessness, it’s beautiful.

There are infinite kinds of beauty, everyone has their own features. I don’t chose a list of things I want, I look at people, and those that particularly stand out to me I want.

Her public behavior is her public behavior, there is no line, its what she does. I could teach her how to assert that she is not happy, but would that really matter.

Pat is different, probably not the best equipped for current society, but I like Pat anyway.

If you are thinking I like Pat because she gets trampled on by all, that is incorrect. Seeing the innocent get stepped on fuels my anger like few other things. Maybe that’s also why I want Pat, to protect.

Its hard to say, its all more romantic then rational.

Thank you for that answer. It makes a little more sense to me when you put it this way.

There was a thread eons ago about submissives that delved into helpless, brainless submission versus mindful, thoughtful submission. And I think the example RJ gave went something like this. If a pipe broke while he was at work, he didn't want his sub to sit around fretting until she he told her what to do about the house flooding. He wanted her to be intelligent and assertive enough to pick up the phone and call a plumber and fix the problem. (I'm paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact conversation.) I guess I just see Pat as the one who would be sort of sitting around getting her feet wet while waiting for someone to rescue her. And I wondered if that were the case, what the attraction would be.

 

[YourCaptor]

Thank you for that answer. It makes a little more sense to me when you put it this way.

There was a thread eons ago about submissives that delved into helpless, brainless submission versus mindful, thoughtful submission. And I think the example RJ gave went something like this. If a pipe broke while he was at work, he didn't want his sub to sit around fretting until she he told her what to do about the house flooding. He wanted her to be intelligent and assertive enough to pick up the phone and call a plumber and fix the problem. (I'm paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact conversation.) I guess I just see Pat as the one who would be sort of sitting around getting her feet wet while waiting for someone to rescue her. And I wondered if that were the case, what the attraction would be.

I think the important thing is to remember that submissive behavior does nor require a lack of initiative, it simply means the sub places the initiative of others above theirs own.

For example, Pat calls a plumber, plumber says they are busy with lunch, Pat says “ok, thank you very much, and enjoy your meal”. Pat then calls another plumber to try again.

You see what I mean?

I think what you are thinking of falls more into the category of a total angst stricken human being. Which would still be hot in a purely aesthetic way, but there would be a lot of intervention needed to get them functional. A mentally non-functional sub would suck. If I had one of those and loved her, not much left to do but find them a nice clinic.

Anyway, Pat saved her kids, sounds functional to me.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Its not that I don’t want her to stand up for herself, but it is an attractive feature. I think it’s the helplessness, it’s beautiful.

There are infinite kinds of beauty, everyone has their own features. I don’t chose a list of things I want, I look at people, and those that particularly stand out to me I want.

Her public behavior is her public behavior, there is no line, its what she does. I could teach her how to assert that she is not happy, but would that really matter.

Pat is different, probably not the best equipped for current society, but I like Pat anyway.

If you are thinking I like Pat because she gets trampled on by all, that is incorrect. Seeing the innocent get stepped on fuels my anger like few other things. Maybe that’s also why I want Pat, to protect.

Its hard to say, its all more romantic then rational.

it's quite rational, at least from my perspective. my Master would very much be attracted to a woman like Pat. Pat would be what he considers a natural submissive, not a person who makes a concious choice to submit, not someone who behaves submissively because they like it or find it to be a a turn on. but one who submits because their nature, their wiring, will not allow them to be any other way. yes, Pat gets trampled on quite a bit. won't stand up for herself, won't put up a fuss no matter how justified. Pat doesn't resist. oh yeah, Daddy would absolutely want Pat's phone number and address, asap, lol.

like YC, my Master is a protector. He fully understands the challenges that will arise when one owns a submissive like Pat, one who has an instinct to serve all, give in to all. He would rather be there to control and protect Pat so that the big bad world wouldn't bruise her any more than he wished, than to change Pat or to have a sub who submitted only contextually, and by choice.

 

[Pure]

note to beachgurl; note to osg

nice posting!

you said,


bg2But this isn't exactly what Pat is doing. She is obeying everyone blindly. She isn't taking into account that there are times she needs to stand up for herself - in public, I mean, not with her Dom. There's a difference between being courteous and a nurturer (which I am by nature, btw) and being a doormat. And that's what I'm not sure we're agreeing on. I am submissive in my personality, which means in most instances, it's fairly obvious that I am submissive if you're paying attention. I tend to 'serve' in most situations.

However, I'm standing up for myself if someone cuts me in line, the way it was described earlier with Pat. I'm not going to just say, "oh, okay, I'll go all the way to the back of the line" when that isn't where I belong. The way the description of Pat was laid it, it sounds like she's the kind of person who doesn't speak up when the waitress charges her for food she didn't order. That's not submissive, in my opinion, that's having no will of her own.

I guess I'm just wondering why you wouldn't want your submissive to stand up for herself when you weren't there to do it for her? If your sub were told to go to the back of the line for no reason, would you expect her to just do that? If she received the wrong order at lunch with friends, would you expect her to just eat what's put in front of her or would it be okay for her to ask the waitress to fix the error? I'm not trying to argue with you about it, I'm truly curious as to where you draw the line, if you do draw the line, in her public behavior.

these are important distinctions. my description of pat was brief and couldn't specify a comprehensive view. in any case, the "problem" i want to raise does not just affect pat, but, one might say, sisters (and brothers) who are like her to varying degrees. there are versions of pat, in other words.

your take goes a step further than mine, in the direction of subservience or intimidation. 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? 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.

but again, the more subservient or passive or helpless 'sisters' (or brothers) of pat are worth discussing in relation to life as 'owned' as 'sub' etc.

==
note to osg

nice posting! the issue of the dom's protectiveness is a good point. it draws attention to the fact that a 'pet' or person on the 'bottom' is not necessarily being ill treated by the dominant party. when on the bottom, for example, i might be treated extraordinarily well.

as to //yes, Pat gets trampled on quite a bit. won't stand up for herself, won't put up a fuss no matter how justified. Pat doesn't resist

see above. 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. would a typical, prospective 'owner', in speaking to her, think she's the perfect sub or even 'slave'? this is rather like the problem of buying a ready made pair of pants, versus that pair with alterations, versus a custom fitted version by a tailor.

iow, i can conceive that this prospective owner wanting to mold her himself. a female owner, for example, might want a male pet with limited assertion, provided the collar stays in place. if a male 'pat' lacked assertion across the board, there's a problem bringing it to being; not much there to nurture, so to say.

hence such an owner might find pat a bit too readymade as across-the-board subservient, to use a word proposed, accurately, by beachgurl, in her earlier posting, above.

 

[YourCaptor]

the "problem" i want to raise does not just affect pat, but, one might say, sisters (and brothers) who are like her to varying degrees. there are versions of pat, in other words.

-sigh- and here I was hoping.

Wish you would have said this earlier.

hence such an owner might find pat a bit too readymade as across the board subservient, to use a word proposed, accurately, by beachgurl, in her earlier posting, above.

Subs where never meant to be a once size fits all. Their is still match making involved.

 

[Desdemona]

I guess I'm in agreement with others here

Who can say if Pat would make a good sub for a strict master? It's up to the individual dominant. Obviously, some here think she sounds hot.

My first reaction when I read the description of Pat was that there is a need for therapy; lots and lots of therapy to develop some self knowledge and self esteem. But, I don't think that's a fair assessment based on the limitations of the OP. My initial reaction infers things that weren't said.

I like to think I'm a pretty good subbie and have been told as much. But, for some, I would be considered a high maintenence nightmare who can be as Snooze once said, "ornery". I'm challenging at times, but, at least according to my current partner, when I choose to submit, it's sweet. He enjoys the challenge and doesn't want a submissive partner who won't assert herself when appropriate.

So, I'm pretty different from Pat. Pat wouldn't be a good match for someone who is a good dominant for me. That's all I can say. Different strokes etc......

 

[Pure]

note to desdemona

Who can say if Pat would make a good sub for a strict master? It's up to the individual dominant. Obviously, some here think she sounds hot.

My first reaction when I read the description of Pat was that there is a need for therapy; lots and lots of therapy to develop some self knowledge and self esteem. But, I don't think that's a fair assessment based on the limitations of the OP. My initial reaction infers things that weren't said.

==
Your second para is quite interesting. 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.

that there is always a contented master for any wouldbe sub [noted in your first para], is, i think, neither here nor there. for every pot, there is a lid. i've proposed, as you said in your own case, that a *typical* master is looking for 'surrender' 'giving up self will' 'bending the knee before him' etc. but certainly i see your conclusion after reading this thread.

some masters are content with someone 'pre trained', 'ready made', or 'obedient by nature' [metaphorically at least]. maybe the legendary 'schools' for subs do, as in literotica stories, produce such subs. i saw one online recently.

i'm reminded of butlers! british style. there certainly could be [or is] a school for them. so if a 'good sub' is like a 'good butler', she could be pretrained simply to do as the master--and maybe any other authority-- says. personally, i'd rather draw the 'good sub' as you've drawn yourself. the phrase 'a good sub' has to be understood as 'good sub for x'. if i'm serving as bottom, i would say that what's needed is that i adapt to the individual demands of my owner. that's what a 'good pet' or a [traditonal] 'good wife' does. and i'd say i am trying to do something something other than is a freshly trained butler in seeking to adapt to the minor differences among employers.

it's true that prospective good wives received training in 'household arts' like cooking, being well groomed, and doing laundry. but this does not mean that she, a specific trainee, will be a 'good wife for x," a specific party. (jeez, my writing is convoluted, this morning. sorry!)

 

[Sir Victor]

I've been meaning to mention finishing school and it is a good analogy to your mention of Butler's school. It also came to mind when people suggested that this can't be taught:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finishing_school

http://www.ivpworld.com/en/default.asp

People should keep in mind that many people enjoy being "good" and following the reasonable rules in life. I know many girls who are aroused when told they are a "good girl" during play. There is, on the other hand, the process of breaking a person's will which seems to be what you suggest has happened to Pat. I do not believe that this is good as it results in more of a robotic slave.

 

[YourCaptor]

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. would a typical, prospective 'owner', in speaking to her, think she's the perfect sub or even 'slave'? this is rather like the problem of buying a ready made pair of pants, versus that pair with alterations, versus a custom fitted version by a tailor.

This statement has been bothering me, but I couldn't figure out how to put.

Pats are in no way pre-trained. Simply because a person like Pat may not require as much obedience training as others, it does not mean they are already set to serve. I got a hard time believing that Pats parents taught Pat how to deep throat.

I think what you are getting at is that Pats are not suited for all masters. Which is true, but its not a problem.

 

[FurryFury]

I haven't read all through this thread to see if Pat has gained anymore character traits or behaviors since the first post.

It bothers me when people dissect other people's posts in detail. I just don't read all that.

I just wanted to say, I read Pat as a person who needed help and an identity before becoming a sub in a D/s relationship.

I thought that anyone who didn't want to help Pat develop that and who wanted Pat as a sub as Pat is now, was probably not the kind of Dom/me that I could feel, would be healthy for Pat, or anyone else.

 

[Pure]

furry,

nicely put. concise.

what i call 'having a will of one's own,' you call having an "identity."

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. i can't get it quite, but 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. even where the task is chastity, "orgasm denial" or whatever, it's an activity that's given up. desires remain, but are willingly reined in.

further the implication that the sub/pet has less "identity" (or an identity missing important aspects) is incorrect.
the "identity" of a priest is not lesser than that of a married man because of sexual abstinence. the sub or pet's new identity is presumably fuller both in their own terms, and in terms of the master/owner. the same kind of thing holds for the successful priest, who can say 'i'm a better person through abstinence, focusing on giving my all to God, without the distraction of attempting marriage.' such a priest would say 'i am fulfilled by this focussing that i have undertaken.' i can picture St. Francis of Assisi saying such a thing: that his life focused on 'serving God' became richer.]

imo, pat is not at step 1, and therefore can't get to step 2. is that what you're saying?
====


FFI just wanted to say, I read Pat as a person who needed help and an identity before becoming a sub in a D/s relationship.

I thought that anyone who didn't want to help Pat develop that and who wanted Pat as a sub as Pat is now, was probably not the kind of Dom/me that I could feel, would be healthy for Pat, or anyone else.

 

[BeachGurl2]

your take goes a step further than mine, in the direction of subservience or intimidation. 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? 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 agree, you didn't state that she was THAT subservient. However, the things you did say led me to see her as someone lacking a will of her own. The examples I've used have been a way to describe what I mean by lacking in will. I didn't use something like your example of the dog because I don't believe that's the kind of person she is, based on the brief description you've given - someone who will remove her children from a physically harmful situation wouldn't stand still to get peed on by a dog. My impression of Pat is of someone who just doesn't have a will of her own. I also didn't intend imply that she was lacking in intelligence, the plumbing example was not directed at Pat, but to further my position in my mini-hijack with YC.

My baseline impression of Pat from all of the descriptions you've given is that she is not so much submissive in personality, but that she lacks spirit, a will of her own. While I understand that there are those would see her as an attractive sub, I don't believe that this kind of person would be fulfilled as a sub at this point. I think before she can truly submit, she has to have some will of her own to actually engage in submitting. But that is my philosophy of submission. It may directly contradict someone else's philosophy of submission. And so that is the perspective I'm approaching this from.

People should keep in mind that many people enjoy being "good" and following the reasonable rules in life. I know many girls who are aroused when told they are a "good girl" during play. There is, on the other hand, the process of breaking a person's will which seems to be what you suggest has happened to Pat. I do not believe that this is good as it results in more of a robotic slave.

Since I'm one of those who craves hearing that, I know exactly what you're talking about. But I don't believe Pat is one who necessarily needs to hear those words or feel that way. I believe she's just plain been programmed by life to behave in a specific manner - again, that lack of will. I don't know that I think she sees it as good or bad, it's just the way she was taught to behave.

 

[Sir Victor]

I still say Pat takes out her pent-up day-to-day rage out on male slaves in her basement, tying them spread-eagled to the floor and crushing their balls with her black thigh-high stiletto boots.

LOL, excellent! Yes people are complex that's for sure!

 

[FurryFury]

nicely put. concise.

what i call 'having a will of one's own,' you call having an "identity."

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.

imo, pat is not at step 1, and therefore can't get to step 2. is that what you're saying?
====


FFI just wanted to say, I read Pat as a person who needed help and an identity before becoming a sub in a D/s relationship.

I thought that anyone who didn't want to help Pat develop that and who wanted Pat as a sub as Pat is now, was probably not the kind of Dom/me that I could feel, would be healthy for Pat, or anyone else.

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

I'm also saying for someone to want Pat to go to step 2 before step 1 shows they don't have her best interests at heart and for her to try could harm her.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

I'm also saying for someone to want Pat to go to step 2 before step 1 shows they don't have her best interests at heart and for her to try could harm her.

I agree. I don't think it would be healthy and I don't think Pat would ultimately be happy.

 

[YourCaptor]

to become a sub to a rigourous master, or a 'pet' to an owner means giving up some aspects of "identity"

I don’t think that is true for all D/s

pat is not at step 1

I disagree, I think Pats know who they are just as well as you and me. Simply because Pat is submissive does not mean pat does not think.

It can be hard to accept someone who is different for what they are, and not make them what you think they are.

Given, this is a very hypothetical situation, but even so, say you flip the social bias on Pat. Say Pat had been conditioned to believe in Christ, as Pat grows older Pat turns out to believe Christianity, and now practices Christian teachings in every day life. Does this Pat sound like she is missing an identity?

 

[Desdemona]

an early morning point

My first reaction when I read the description of Pat was that there is a need for therapy; lots and lots of therapy to develop some self knowledge and self esteem. But, I don't think that's a fair assessment based on the limitations of the OP. My initial reaction infers things that weren't said.

==
Your second para is quite interesting. 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. QUOTE]

I'm not really talking about 'style' here. I'm talking about a sense of self will or personal power. If you don't really have a sense of who you are or of your own power, how can you give it away to someone else? What is it you really have to offer?

I remember years ago, reading some of Cymbidia's and Shadowsdream's posts about submission from a place of strength and power (I'm paraphrasing and yeah, I've been here a while). Shadowsdream required a sub or slave with a healthy self esteem and sense of their own power and would not accept less. Those posts made a big impression on me, but it took some evolution on my part to really get it on a personal level. Now that I do have a strong sense of myself as a powerful person, it's a big deal to both of us when I offer that power to my partner. He knows exactly how strong and powerful I am in all facets of life. He says it's one of "my charms". He gets off on the fact that a powerful person would submit to him just as I get off on relinquishing that hard won power to him.

Also, I didn't actually recomend therapy. I said that was my initial reaction, but on further reflection, that wasn't fair. That said, therapy, for some, is a good way to discover a sense of self. For it to be successful, you have to want it. As you pointed out, Pat may not want it or see it as necessary.

 

[rinka]

Only want to say that I've found this thread very interesting and eyeopening. Many of you have formulated answers to questions I couldn't formulate...
I see better now how that inner resistance has a value, that submitting despite it and with it can deepen the submission. Still not crystal clear... but thankyou