a good sub?

[Sir Victor]

Let me ask, is Pat mildly depressed or is she an upbeat sort of person?

 

[intothewoods]

Let me ask, is Pat mildly depressed or is she an upbeat sort of person?

Maybe she's just bummed out because she was named Pat.

 

[Sir Victor]

Maybe she's just bummed out because she was named Pat.

LOL! There are worse names!
However, I don't think we've established her state of mind!

 

[Pure]

sir v.

in my understanding she is not 'mildly depressed' nor 'unhappy.' i would say that if a little less than "upbeat", she is a positive person.
she believes that most people in authority are doing a good job, and is optimistic that they will solve the problems they encounter, if supported by good people such as herself.

all this is to say that i see no reason to "pathologize" pat, to put her in ANY of the diagnostic categories of 'mental disorders,' e.g. the psychiatrists' DSM-IV. she has basic social competence, can hold down a good job in a support role, and faces a prospect of a better, if still strongly traditional, husband-ruled marriage. while at this point experienced only in conventional ('vanilla') sex, she has normal desire and responses within a traditional structure prescribing wifely duties in supporting her husband and raising their children.

we will assume she has taken a minor [ADDED, a better word might be "some"] interest in bdsm because she discovered one of her workmates is a 'pet.' the authority structure of that relationship intrigues her. her knowledge is lacking, but her curiousity has been provoked.
===

NOTE: there are several versions of 'pat' conceived in this thread. simply because the above is my impression does not rule out questions about persons who are just similar (i.e. not the same), have her characteristics to a stronger degree, etc.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Edited.

Sorry, was a bit grouchy yesterday.

 

[Sir Victor]

in my understanding she is not 'mildly depressed' nor 'unhappy.' i would say that if a little less than "upbeat", she is a positive person.
she believes that most people in authority are doing a good job, and is optimistic that they will solve the problems they encounter, if supported by good people such as herself.

all this is to say that i see no reason to "pathologize" pat, to put her in ANY of the diagnostic categories of 'mental disorders,' e.g. the psychiatrists' DSM-IV. she has basic social competence, can hold down a good job in a support role, and faces a prospect of a better, if still strongly traditional, husband-ruled marriage. while at this point experienced only in conventional ('vanilla') sex, she has normal desire and responses within a traditional structure prescribing wifely duties in supporting her husband and raising their children.

we will assume she has taken a minor interest in bdsm because she discovered one of her workmates is a 'pet.' the authority structure of that relationship intrigues her. her knowledge is lacking, but her curiousity has been provoked.
===

NOTE: there are several versions of 'pat' conceived in this thread. simply because the above is my impression does not rule out questions about persons who are just similar (i.e. not the same), have her characteristics to a stronger degree, etc.

I agree with much of what you say here, pure. I only brought up depression since I believe that most who have been "broken" in spirit, are usually slightly depressed. Several have mentioned that pat needs therapy, I don't believe there is enough information to know one way or the other, and I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about her mental condition. I would not say that she has no self image, rather from what I can tell she views herself as a follower. As they say there are leaders and followers in life. I've noticed that followers find a comfort in allowing another perhaps stronger person that they look up to make choices for them, hopefully good ones. I don't believe that there's anything wrong with pat, she just seems to be a follower.

 

[YourCaptor]

she believes that most people in authority are doing a good job, and is optimistic that they will solve the problems they encounter, if supported by good people such as herself.

I love this girl

 

[Pure]

note to Y C

i hate to admit this, but you're starting to convert me.! [ADDED: i am NOT quite converted, yet; the reflections below are to be taken as exploring the merits of the 'no enough information option.]

i don't often start a thread in one position, and end in another. i think though that 'not enough info' is quite plausible. and consistent with what you suggest.

that is, there is [hypothetically, according to this option] nothing about pat that would preclude her from doing sm, being a pet, etc--and getting the usual 'benefits'/satisfactions that others do, the ones fit for the vocation. the personality i sketched is, so to say, neither here nor there, as regard to her benefit or lack thereof from an SM relationship. this is the position of some in the Type A thread.
(type A may or may not be correlated [positively or negatively] with 'submission.')

as i put it above, there is no sign that Pat has any pathology or "problem" in her mind or personality. she's just somewhat more compliant and subservient than some women, in our culture, now, find appealing for themselves. hence [hypothetically, according to this option] her consent, assuming she gets into some sessions as a 'pet,' is not vitiated [or made questionable] by the facts proposed; IOW it's a valid choice, that cannot be invalidated by appeal to 'universal standards' allegedly going beyond personal prefs.

 

[Daddyslilpet]

I still haven't seen anything to indicate that pat has a desire to be a submissive. Only speculation that this vanilla female might be one because she exhibits some traits of submission in her everyday life, which doesn't mean she desires to serve a Master. Just because this is the lifestyle we choose doesn't mean it fits everyone. Just saying.

 

[Pure]

hi dady's

to daddyslipet,

yes, that SM interest wasn't spelled out in the first description, but see above. #79 (reply to sir v).
see also #83.

iow, hypothesize an attraction and interest.

 

[Daddyslilpet]

Pure,
Assuming a "minor interest" is a far cry from serving a Master as a pet... again just saying. You know better than that.

 

[Pure]

note to daddy's

the reason for NOT emphasizing some huge interest in SM is to make the answer depend on her personality, not primarily her interest.

 

[YourCaptor]

i hate to admit this, but you're starting to convert me.!

I can change you back if you like.

 

[cati]

YourCaptor... I think you're funny...smiles and Pure you've made me take a good hard look at the type of submissive I am or have been thus far. How does Pat react when she gets really, really angry? Does she cry? Is Pat a real person BTW?

 

[BeachGurl2]

Hmmm, I note a little bit of a change in Pat's description. Which, of course, changes the direction the conversation takes. The earliest descriptions painted Pat as someone with no real will of her own. But more recent additions describe her with a little more . . . I'm not sure what word to use, backbone maybe, or substance. I have a feeling, Pure, that's why she's becoming more attractive as a possible sub. Originally, she was presented as really kind of a blah, no will, no spirit, individual. That made her totally unattractive, in my mind. But the layers that you're adding now make her less blah, less lacking in will. I think as pieces are added, she'll become even more multi-dimensional, thereby making her a sort of composite sub, which would make her more attractive. So the original premise, in my mind, has changed a bit.

Looking at this from the original premise, my position was (and remains) that a person (sub or not) lacking spirit, lacking a will of his/her own, is basically unattractive in most any kind of relationship. Unless, of course, you're the kind of person who desires someone without a will of their own.

As the description of Pat evolves, I think we'll find traits added here and there that do make her a more well-rounded individual. And she will become more and more attractive to most people, because even those who say they would be highly attracted to someone without spirit or will, will still see a more multi-dimensional person as more attractive.

Obviously, there will be those who say I'm full of shit.

 

[Daddyslilpet]

the reason for NOT emphasizing some huge interest in SM is to make the answer depend on her personality, not primarily her interest.

That's my whole point Pure... most people get into this lifestyle because they have an interest in it, not solely based on their personality. Anyway, enjoy your conversation, I'm out.

 

[ownedsubgal]

That's my whole point Pure... most people get into this lifestyle because they have an interest in it, not solely based on their personality. Anyway, enjoy your conversation, I'm out.

actually what drew me to this lifestyle was the fact that i thought i finally had a place where my personality and nature could be accepted. i had always been a submissive person and being submissive in a vanilla world led to lots of misery and pain. so when i learned of D/s, it was like wow, maybe there's a place for a freak like me after all. it had nothing whatsoever to do with any interest in any kink or S&M.

 

[intothewoods]

actually what drew me to this lifestyle was the fact that i thought i finally had a place where my personality and nature could be accepted. i had always been a submissive person and being submissive in a vanilla world led to lots of misery and pain. so when i learned of D/s, it was like wow, maybe there's a place for a freak like me after all. it had nothing whatsoever to do with any interest in any kink or S&M.

But that is kink, too.

 

[Pure]

note to beach gurl

interesting points! i've gone through my last week's 'clarifications' and additional descriptioins, and compilied them, below. i do have a feel for what you say, namely,

BG The earliest descriptions painted Pat as someone with no real will of her own. But more recent additions describe her with a little more . . . I'm not sure what word to use, backbone maybe, or substance. I have a feeling, Pure, that's why she's becoming more attractive as a possible sub. Originally, she was presented as really kind of a blah, no will, no spirit, individual. That made her totally unattractive, in my mind. But the layers that you're adding now make her less blah, less lacking in will. I think as pieces are added, she'll become even more multi-dimensional, thereby making her a sort of composite sub, which would make her more attractive. So the original premise, in my mind, has changed a bit.
---

pure: reading over all the additions, now, i agree, yes, i've 'normalized', pat at least in clarifying that she is NOT depressed, traumatized, poorly functioning on the job, or lacking basic social skills. she's not 'torn up' inwardly. she was never 'smarting' from her parents' rigorous, even oppressive rule. BUT i don't think any of the additions gave her more self will or individual identity. consistently i've had her bow to authority, even, generally, when it's slightly abused. i had her NOT pursue a complaint against a cop, when her purse snatching account is treated as trivial. in general she thinks people in authority are doing a good job, and deserve her and others like her, following them without griping.

so, beach gurl, i see your conclusion, but in fact, for me, the modification of my views (toying with the idea that perhaps, depending, she migh make a good sub or pet) has a different basis than yours.

"Your Captor" has made good points supporting his view about pat's suitability for subbing if she's interested and consents; the master is hardly sinister or immoral if he or she takes this "follower" kind of person as sub. where i serve the master, i expect and hear a similar view: the master chooses you: makes the choice to bind you and determine how you serve. But your choices are also operative: your offer to serve and carrying through in that to which you are bound. They are real and operative notwithstanding your background; that you were intimidated by a parent, decades back, is irrelevant. you (meaning "anyone") are being rather presumptuous --however it's styled as "individualism"--in second guessing pat's choice to serve, if she makes it, and her master accepts her service. on what basis can you say to her, in effect, "*i* don't think your choice and consent can be meaningful, because you always defer to outside authorities, and this doesn't suit me."

in simple terms, we living in our various ways in some SM mode or other have to recognize the truisms "it takes all kinds" and, in general, "if you say it's good for you, it is.' you don't have to be da vinci to be gay, nor jack kerouac or emma goldman to be someone's erotic slave.



the following is a complete listing of additional descriptions or characterizations of pat, made by pure, in the period May 29-June 6:


if she's in a lineup for a bus, and the driver says, unfairly, 'move to the back of the line because others were here first' and this wasn't the case, she simply says, "yes sir."

of what does her "surrender" to the master consist: "on your knees"; "yes sir." same words, same type of behavior.

does the master have 'authority' over her? perhaps. but so did the bus driver. does she _give the master authority over her_? perhaps yes, but her parents, her teachers, the traffic cop, all get the same treatment. one might say, rather than 'give' authority, that she, unreflectively, gives way in the face of any authority that asserts itself.
===

she does not *go onto her knees* before her master.

she is for a long time, always and routinely on her knees before all authorities. it's not an issue she reflects about, or even makes a choice regarding.
===

the problem with pat, as i see it, is that it's hard to give content to any particular "giving up of self will," if she's never shown any.
===

Suppose pat finds an 'owner' and has a relationship with him or her. We [hypothetically] picture that owner telling pat to do something; pat does it without a question or thought of resisting. Presumably this would include some difficult things, like say peeing in front of the master; never touching her panties for a whole day, whatever.[...]

pat already does have a kind of all round "freedom": when she encounters authorities, she does what they say. and, assuming they're not monsters, this 'frees' her for other concerns. many if not most people in the world live this way; under strong authority. indeed this is ancient. IMO, allegedy 'primitive' tribes, aboriginal grouping have strong authority; no one questions, say, the rules about contacts with menstruating women. young men do not say "i think i'll pass on the 'initiation into manhood.'"

so the change for pat is rather opposite [if, hypothetically she becomes someone's pet]. if she's now freer, it's in the bedroom, or sexually. although before she yielded to a tradition minded husband, who might have, say, insisted on fucking every second night, she now has a master with many more options. so we picture her "freely" complying with non-ordinary sexual demands, say for example having sex with a woman.
====

i specified that pat deferred to authorities or those (rightfully) claiming or asserting authority.
i did not say she'd let the neighbor's dog pee on her foot.

as to the plumber example, originally by rj. what does pat do when a pipe breaks [and she's alone]? sit there in anxiety or call a plumber. i'd tend to say the latter, for i did not intend that pat be helpless, or totally lacking in *initiative* in the face of all life's emergencies. else she could not hold a job (requiring occasionally dealing with the unforeseen. however i do see her paying his bill that somewhat inflated (though not criminal). and if the tax authorities say the expense is not deductible, i don't see her appealing it.
===

i did not say a stranger could walk up and grab her purse and saunter off, there being no resistance. so you're talking about a more passive 'pat', but a valid one to consider. i picture that pat would resist, and even go tell a cop. BUT if he says, "look lady, i've got more important matters than lost purses to deal with" i do NOT picture her saying "what is your badge number? how do i contact your supervisor at the police station?"

--
general note. i did not exactly say pat was a 'natural submissive,' though again such a person is a 'sister' and deserves discussion. i think pat had some 'natural tendencies' not to be very assertive; but her parents and teachers etc. trained her from toddlerhood, to obey; to follow orders, and to respect authority, even where somewhat misused, according to some subject to it.

hence the question of her "submission" to an owner, sm style. she is, one might say, already trained to a 't', as a particular type of person.
==

Some of us might find her lacking an inmportant ingredient for life as an individual. Self will; resistance to arbitrary authority; capability of rebellion against it. 'orneriness' as you put it, as is sometimes not inappropriate in life--as we see it.

OTOH, we can't just recommend 'therapy' for those whose style does not agree, saying "therapy would be good for pat; because pat doesn't seem to know what's good for pat." so looking deeper, i'd say pat is a POOR candidate for therapy. as she sees it, her 'style' does not create probs for her, and she's not unhappy with it. as to the marriage, i think she might say that everyone makes a poor choice sometimes.; IOW her deference to authority did set up, create, or further the marital problem.
===

now, to become a sub to a rigourous master, or a 'pet' to an owner means giving up some aspects of "identity"**: for example, i give up doing what i please in a number of areas, typically, including sex.

the sequence is 1. have an identity; 2. give up some aspects of identity**.

**[ADDED: this is not well phrased[...] perhaps "giving up some of the activities associated with some aspects of identity" is better; let's say, giving up masturbation or fucking whomever you please. the 'aspect of identity', sexual desire, is still there. [...]

imo, pat is not at step 1, and therefore can't get to step 2.

==
she is not 'mildly depressed' nor 'unhappy.' i would say that if a little less than "upbeat", she is a positive person.
she believes that most people in authority are doing a good job, and is optimistic that they will solve the problems they encounter, if supported by good people such as herself.

all this is to say that i see no reason to "pathologize" pat, to put her in ANY of the diagnostic categories of 'mental disorders,' e.g. the psychiatrists' DSM-IV. she has basic social competence, can hold down a good job in a support role, and faces a prospect of a better, if still strongly traditional, husband-ruled marriage. while at this point experienced only in conventional ('vanilla') sex, she has normal desire and responses within a traditional structure prescribing wifely duties in supporting her husband and raising their children.

we will assume she has taken a minor [ADDED, a better word might be "some"] interest in bdsm because she discovered one of her workmates is a 'pet.' the authority structure of that relationship intrigues her. her knowledge is lacking, but her curiousity has been provoked.
===
[pure considering the merits of the last option, 'not enough info']
i think though that 'not enough info' is quite plausible. and consistent with what you suggest.

that is, there is [hypothetically, considering this option] nothing about pat that would preclude her from doing sm, being a pet, etc--and getting the usual 'benefits'/satisfactions that others do, the ones fit for the vocation. the personality i sketched is, so to say, neither here nor there, as regard to her benefit or lack thereof from an SM relationship. this is the position of some in the Type A thread.
(type A may or may not be correlated [positively or negatively] with 'submission.')

as i put it above, there is no sign that Pat has any pathology or "problem" in her mind or personality. she's just somewhat more compliant and subservient than some women, in our culture, now, find appealing for themselves. hence [hypothetically, according to this option] her consent, assuming she gets into some sessions as a 'pet,' is not vitiated [or made questionable] by the facts proposed; IOW it's a valid choice, that cannot be invalidated by appeal to 'universal standards' allegedly going beyond personal prefs.

-----

 

[ownedsubgal]

But that is kink, too.

how is a personality trait a kink?

 

[intothewoods]

how is a personality trait a kink?

Because it's not just a personality trait. A personality trait does not sum up your entire private and sexual life.

 

[YourCaptor]

actually what drew me to this lifestyle was the fact that i thought i finally had a place where my personality and nature could be accepted. i had always been a submissive person and being submissive in a vanilla world led to lots of misery and pain. so when i learned of D/s, it was like wow, maybe there's a place for a freak like me after all. it had nothing whatsoever to do with any interest in any kink or S&M.

Yes thats why I am here too.

Its nice to have people you can talk to about your likes without them turning pail, red, or smoke billowing from their slanted eyebrows.

I am this way and always was, yet only a few years ago I found out that their is a name for it all. Yes I was interested in acceptance, but the lifestyle was already their.

Even if their was no terminology or community I would still be this way.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Because it's not just a personality trait. A personality trait does not sum up your entire private and sexual life.

but that's just it...i wasn't drawn to the lifestyle for any sexual reason. my introduction to the lifestyle wasn't through anything sexual or bdsm related. it was more through a group of folks who had a particular ideal regarding gender roles and relationships. as a female who had always been a desperate pleaser of others, never could refuse anyone, was constantly walked on by th world at large (and hated it), it was like finally finding a safe place, where i belonged.

and yes, i'm also a pervert, absolutely. but that's my sex life, and for me this lifestyle isn't about my sex life...and in the beginning, i wasn't even aware that such a group of pervs lay within.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Yes thats why I am here too.

Its nice to have people you can talk to about your likes without them turning pail, red, or smoke billowing from their slanted eyebrows.

I am this way and always was, yet only a few years ago I found out that their is a name for it all. Yes I was interested in acceptance, but the lifestyle was already their.

Even if their was no terminology or community I would still be this way.

exactly. the lifestyle provides a wonderful opportunity to be accepted for who i am, but without it i would still be me and still be seeking out very much the same sort of relationship and way of life. there was actually a period before i discovered D/s where i seriously contemplated converting to orthodox islam, as my partner at the time was of that faith and up to that point it was the only community in which i thought someone with my nature could fit in.

 

[intothewoods]

but that's just it...i wasn't drawn to the lifestyle for any sexual reason. my introduction to the lifestyle wasn't through anything sexual or bdsm related. it was more through a group of folks who had a particular ideal regarding gender roles and relationships. as a female who had always been a desperate pleaser of others, never could refuse anyone, was constantly walked on by th world at large (and hated it), it was like finally finding a safe place, where i belonged.

and yes, i'm also a pervert, absolutely. but that's my sex life, and for me this lifestyle isn't about my sex life...and in the beginning, i wasn't even aware that such a group of pervs lay within.

I see. My impression of your sex life was that it was controlled by your Daddy, in the same way he controls other non-sexual aspects of your life. I wasn't aware that wasn't always a part of the lifestyle for you.