a good sub?

[cati]

Thanks Pure for the clarification. If Pat should choose a Master who was more Gor oriented, then she should have absolutely no problem socially, since slaves allegedly defer and offer respect to all "free" men/women. In a regular D/s relationship her Dom can advise Pat on how he wishes her to behave ie, defer only to him call "him" Master and no other.
I think Pat would do well to work on her sense of self (now) as a person. Find out who she is separate from having a Dominant figure in her life. However, she might not be able to handle this situation for very long. She shouldn't make the mistake of losing herself in a partner....the two halves of a whole thing.

Pure, you feel that it's ok that Pat lose some aspects of her identity in a D/s relationship. I'm not sure how you mean that. Do you mean aspects of her personality that aren't conducive to being a good sub or pet? Personally I don't feel that's a healthy thing for her. From what I've read about her, Pat doesn't seem to have an "A" type personality, but she might do well in developing that side of her character.
On the other hand if she is allowed to "grow as a person" under her Master's tutelage than I'm all for it. She could be quite a handful tho'. I would not want to see her dissatisfied with her new Master/Owner and she could very easily become unhappy and rebel against her authority at some point down the road.
What's that syndrome called? Post Traumatic Stress syndrome, thats it!. Don't ask why I feel she could suffer from that at some point in her life.

In addition, I think it rather unfair to call Pat and women like her door-mats... simply because they have a passive nature.

 

[YourCaptor]

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.

I must admit I am not the biggest fan. While I respect Islam, too many of its members don’t return the favor.

If you do join I really hope you will be able to see the distinction between Islamic and radical.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I must admit I am not the biggest fan. While I respect Islam, too many of its members don’t return the favor.

If you do join I really hope you will be able to see the distinction between Islamic and radical.

well of course. i have great admiration and respect for those who find peace and stability in adhering to their faith and living their lives according to those tenets. but there's little chance of my becoming a muslim...1, my Master's a passionate Christian, and 2, i really can't get with the whole "God" part lol.

 

[cati]

Ok Pure . my apologies, I found the info I was looking for after re-reading your post (identity)

 

[BeachGurl2]

In addition, I think it rather unfair to call Pat and women like her door-mats... simply because they have a passive nature.

Since I'm the one who called her that, I'll respond to this. I am not generalizing that all people who are passive in nature are doormats. I'm directly addressing my take on Pure's description of Pat. I'm sorry that my use of that word offends you. But I stand by my earlier opinion on the subject.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Pure, I really want to reply but am on my way out the door. It will have to wait until tomorrow when I have more time to do it justice. Have a good night all!

 

[cati]

Beachgurl2... Oh my...the use of the word doesn't offend me, some female "friends" that called "me" a door mat offended me a wee bit. I spose they didn't like the way my Dom was treating me and my co-dependent attitude. All the while I thought I was being a good, compliant, well behaved, quiet sorta sub/slave. I was surprised to say the least when I was told I was being a doormat. Thats more or less why I talk about finding a "sense of self' and being assertive (if that's allowed) before venturing into a D/s relationship. I have difficulty expressing anger in a healthy way as well. ie. I don't feel angry when I should, or when I do, I suppress the emotion.

One should be able to express one's opinion here without offending anyone...smiles.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Beachgurl2... Oh my...the use of the word doesn't offend me, some female "friends" that called "me" a door mat offended me a wee bit. I spose they didn't like the way my Dom was treating me and my co-dependent attitude. All the while I thought I was being a good, compliant, well behaved, quiet sorta sub/slave. I was surprised to say the least when I was told I was being a doormat. Thats more or less why I talk about finding a "sense of self' and being assertive (if that's allowed) before venturing into a D/s relationship. I have difficulty expressing anger in a healthy way as well. ie. I don't feel angry when I should, or when I do, I suppress the emotion.

One should be able to express one's opinion here without offending anyone...smiles.

I'm glad to know that I didn't offend you, cati. And I have been called the same on more than one occasion, so I understand exactly what you mean. The point you made here that I've highlighted was pretty much the angle I was coming from as well.

 

[Pure]

note to cati

cati Oh my...the use of the word doesn't offend me, some female "friends" that called "me" a door mat offended me a wee bit. I spose they didn't like the way my Dom was treating me and my co-dependent attitude. All the while I thought I was being a good, compliant, well behaved, quiet sorta sub/slave. I was surprised to say the least when I was told I was being a doormat. Thats more or less why I talk about finding a "sense of self' and being assertive (if that's allowed) before venturing into a D/s relationship.

that's one question that motivated this thread. is the model for "good sub" or "person who'd flourish as a sub/pet" essentially two stages, one before service: self assertion followed by surrender.

those using the term 'doormat' are, in a somewhat judgemental way, saying 'this person has too little self assertion to be healthy.'
other posters have questioned our right or ability to make such a judgement in the absence a)of unhappiness or b) or objective disasters, e.g. failures to hold any job; series of distastrously failed relationships.

what makes the question of pat's being "owned" an interesting one is that i've said, in fleshing out the description, that neither a) nor b) apply. one marriage to an abuser is not a sign of a mental or personality disorder.

another wrinkle not in the original brief description is the possible, general "passivity" of pat. the term "doormat" suggests almost anyone takes advantage of a person, let's say, a neighbor that parks his car in one's driveway. so again, for the discussion, i proposed that we consider that "pat" does NOT allow a dog to piss on her foot, or her purse to be snatched without resistance. what does pat do? in the face of aggression or injustice *from an equal or lesser person*, pat appeals to authority. she reports a purse snatching to the police.

so one question of the thread is 'do you have to be a bit of a rebel against authority, or a potential one, to make good pet?' it's possibly paradoxical, sort of like saying, 'if you haven't been arrested or gotten laid, don't apply to become a nun." ownedsubgal has recently given some plausible reasons for saying that the answer is 'no.' but the thread still wrestles with the issue.

thanks for your postings!

 

[Desdemona]

doormats

Pure, I've been letting this notion about being a doormat simmer in my head for a while. Quite frankly, for a long time I was a doormat. I had very little self assertion skills and little sense of who I was or what I wanted. Like Pat, I left an abusive marriage. The notion of submitting from a sense of personal power and strength was extremely counter-intuitive to me when I was new to this life.

Now, I'm a "woman of a certain age". The golden years seem to be racing towards me. My views on submission, interactions in real life, how I approach any situation have evolved over time and are flavored by all my life experiences. My response to your description of Pat was certainly affected by my own past. Here is what I wonder:

Does age and life experience color our impression of whether or not Pat is potentially a good pet? I'm thinking it probably does.

Is there some demographic difference among the dominants and submissives who think Pat has real potential right now vs the ones who think Pat needs to do some personal growth? I'm betting there is.

Of course, this could be obvious to everyone but me. I'm going to go putter in my garden now.

 

[cati]

that's one question that motivated this thread. is the model for "good sub" or "person who'd flourish as a sub/pet" essentially two stages, one before service: self assertion followed by surrender.

I think that would be the normal (expected) scenario.

I feel that most submissive types are more comfortable deferring to those in authority. They may not agree with them or even like it, but it is something they are used to and it's much easier to do....

Would the Dom have the wisdom and insight into Pat personality and say "Yes I think this girl has potential. I have to train her to not submit to just anyone, but defer only to me, because that's something that I want for us both. I want her to be able to express her self honestly and without fear of punishment. In doing so, I will begin to gain her trust and she will ultimately surrender her will (which she does have) to me.

those using the term 'doormat' are, in a somewhat judgemental way, saying 'this person has too little self assertion to be healthy.
other posters have questioned our right or ability to make such a judgement in the absence a)of unhappiness or b) or objective disasters, e.g. failures to hold any job; series of distastrously failed relationships.

I think many are using "doormat" as an umbrella term to explain passive behaviour.

what makes the question of pat's being "owned" an interesting one is that i've said, in fleshing out the description, that neither a) nor b) apply. one marriage to an abuser is not a sign of a mental or personality disorder.

Indeed, it is not a sign of a personality disorder. If she needs to hone up on being more assertive than she can do that of course...only if she's unhappy the way she is now.. a bit passive.
As you said Pure, Pat is gainfully employed and is more or less a happy person. The fact that Pat began to fear for her own and her children's safety and left her abusive husband shows she is able to make smart decisions, she has a will of her own.

i proposed that we consider that "pat" does NOT allow a dog to piss on her foot, or her purse to be snatched without resistance. what does pat do? in the face of aggression or injustice *from an equal or lesser person*, pat appeals to authority. she reports a purse snatching to the police.

Yes, she did approach the cop. As to why she didn't ask for his badge number etc. ...chuckling only a bitch would do that..smirks.
Maybe the copper "had" more important things to do, again Pat felt people in authority were doing a good job and felt no need to make a stink about it. Maybe Pat hated that purse, maybe there was nothing important in it...no cash or credit cards... and just maybe she lives in New York and knew it was a lost cause anyway. The fact that she even approached a policeman, shows that she can assert herself when she needs to...up to a point.
Just think... maybe she ran after the purse snatcher but lost him in Central Park...snorts.

so one question of the thread is 'do you have to be a bit of a rebel against authority, or a potential one, to make good pet?' it's possibly paradoxical, sort of like saying, 'if you haven't been arrested or gotten laid, don't apply to become a nun." ownedsubgal has recently given some plausible reasons for saying that the answer is 'no.' but the thread still wrestles with the issue.


wtf...laffs, it isn't like saying that at all! What the heck does that mean anyway? (what you posted above)

Pure aren't you in fact saying that it is better to take on a willful, assertive, "together" individual as a potential submissive, because her/his submission has more value?


Thanks for the thread..smiles

 

[BeachGurl2]

Does age and life experience color our impression of whether or not Pat is potentially a good pet? I'm thinking it probably does.

Is there some demographic difference among the dominants and submissives who think Pat has real potential right now vs the ones who think Pat needs to do some personal growth? I'm betting there is.

I'm thinking you may have a bit of a point here. Everyone has their own perspective on things based on their own past experiences. I, too, left an abusive marriage after 10 years. I had been pretty beaten down emotionally and spent a lot of time feeling that I deserved what I was getting. I tried fighting back during the marriage, but of course, it didn't work. So over time, I stopped fighting back and just accepted. I didn't leave until I realized how harmful it was for my girls. Once I saw how the abuse was affecting them, then I knew that I couldn't continue. And it took a good year after I left for me to 'find' myself again and heal from that abuse enough to feel ready to explore another relationship and to feel good about myself and who I was.

-----

I'm not going to cut and paste all kinds of comments to comment specifically to things, just sort of write out some random thoughts based on everything we've all talked about here.

I've always been what I call naturally submissive. Even when I was a little girl. I was raised in the Deep South in a pretty traditional Southern culture. My Daddy called me Princess and I was a compliant, sweet, obedient, Southern Girl. Most of the time. *g* I'm also a risk taker, am pretty smart, and opinionated. I avoid conflict. I pick my battles - if something isn't of any real importance to me, then I drop it. Many people consider that as passive. And in ways, it is passive. I don't get angry, to me that's a wasted emotion. I get frustrated, but not angry. I don't yell and I'm not at all violent in any way.

However, when something is of importance to me, I do stand up and fight. I put my foot down and say 'no'. So yes, there are times to be passive, to let things go, but there are times to take a stand. If I'm being treated unfairly, I take a stand. And if something affects my girls, you can bet I take a stand.

All that said, my take on Pat was formed mostly from the original post. The original post made Pat appear to be someone who didn't take a stand ever. She just accepted everything that came her way, fair or not. She was completely reactive, never proactive. She didn't seem to be someone who actively participated in life - yes, she has a job and she's raising her children, but that's not what I mean about actively participating in life. It was the reactive, passive personality that I was referring to.

Circumstances determine how we respond to things. As Cati pointed out, maybe when her purse was stolen, it wasn't important enough to her to pursue or the circumstances made it a waste of time to pursue. I can buy that. So while Pat originally appeared to be a 'doormat', someone who never stands up for herself, maybe she's more like me than I originally thought and picks her battles. In that case, she isn't someone without a will or a spirit.

As this discussion as progressed, we've all been able to see how easy it is to make judgments based on a little information and how those judgments can change as more information is added. That's what I meant about Pat becoming more attractive as more information is added. Because now we see her in a more complete way, with layers, multi-dimensional rather than one-dimensional, as was originally presented.

As to the original questions, the only people who can truly answer them are Pat and whomever may approach her as a prospective Dom. There are those out there who are interested in dominating people who are weak. So even if it turns out that Pat is weak rather than passive, I'm sure there are still those who would find her attractive. Maybe they enjoy the challenge of 'training' her to be more assertive. Maybe they like the challenge of being her protector. As long as it works for both of them, then it works. Which is true of any relationship within the lifestyle.

I originally answered the poll by choosing the option that there isn't enough information to make a determination. I stand by that because even at this point, we still don't have enough information to decide if it's the life for her.

 

[Pure]

note to cati

Pure aren't you in fact saying that it is better to take on a willful, assertive, "together" individual as a potential submissive, because her/his submission has more value?

that was certainly an initial thought i had on the topic. but it turns out to be far more complex. surely non-mavericks can make choices. most of us are not mavericks, but like to think we are. keep up the postings!

 

[cati]

I think (am not quite sure) I have run out of things to say. I will say this tho' I keep picturing seeing Pat as the Pat in Saturday Night live. Tell me she's a little more feminine please!

 

[YourCaptor]

Would the Dom have the wisdom and insight into Pat personality and say "Yes I think this girl has potential. I have to train her to not submit to just anyone, but defer only to me, because that's something that I want for us both. I want her to be able to express her self honestly and without fear of punishment. In doing so, I will begin to gain her trust and she will ultimately surrender her will (which she does have) to me.

Hmm, I still think a Pat would do just fine. There is no need to teach her how to be assertive, because a sub does not need to be assertive in order to submit. Submission is submission, whether you bend them to your will, or if they simply obey you.

What we need to remember is that submitting is not the act of giving up power, but the act of giving in to the power of another.

I think (am not quite sure) I have run out of things to say. I will say this tho' I keep picturing seeing Pat as the Pat in Saturday Night live. Tell me she's a little more feminine please!

I was thinking the same thing, remember the one where the two trainers cant figure out whether to giver her a male or female work out?

I originally answered the poll by choosing the option that there isn't enough information to make a determination. I stand by that because even at this point, we still don't have enough information to decide if it's the life for her.

So in what case could Pats not submit?

 

[cati]

Hmm, I still think a Pat would do just fine. There is no need to teach her how to be assertive, because a sub does not need to be assertive in order to submit. Submission is submission, whether you bend them to your will, or if they simply obey you.

The whole idea is for a submissive to want to willingly obey you and no she doesn't need to be assertive to submit... hell no...

BUT

I believe it is the responsibility of a "good" Master to ensure that his property grows as a person within the relationship. If she is unable to express her true feelings to her Dom (regarding whatever problem she may be having) for fear of displeasing him, or losing his love, then I feel she has to work on becoming more assertive...in her methods of communication and making her needs known to him.

Here's another example, Pat and her Dom are out at a Fetish Club. This is her first time out. He gets up and leaves her sitting at the table while he goes off wandering. An hour later Pat is still sitting alone waiting for him to return. She sees him now and then talking to people, but he makes no gesture for her to come to him. She becomes uncomfortable. What should she do/have done?

a) asked to go with him in the beginning?
b) gone to find him?
c) passed the time by making small talk with her table mates and wait for him to return and say nothing if and when he comes back?
d) walk out the door and not say a word to anyone.

If she sits there and does none of the above, do you think Pat is submitting to her Dom's will? because a sub does not need to be assertive in order to submit? You said.

Note: The big guy hasn't given her any directives so she obviously doesn't know the right thing to do so technically there is no "Domly will" to submit to.

If Pat takes any of the four actions she will be asserting "herself" and by taking said action (expressing her will) again asserts herself in order to ease her own discomfort. This is one of the few times, Pat thinks for herself.

At the end of the evening, when all is said and done, Pat is questioned by her Dom "why didn't you do this....you might have asked ....had I known that you felt that way I would have.... or why did you do that and not let me know... I didn't know that you felt that way...etc. etc.
(We aren't told what Pat really did). You see my point YC, it's there somewhere.
__________________

What we need to remember is that submitting is not the act of giving up power, but the act of giving in to the power of another.

I agree with you on the second part YC but not the first.
I mean it in the sense of submission being the opposite of Domination, where it is necessary for [us] to suppress our personal power in order to be "more" submissive. Your idea of submission as I see it is more like a person submitting to a higher authority who has "the power" such as an employer, our teachers, the police and so forth.

we all have Dominant and submissive sides right? Right.
As lifestyle "subs" we are advised right from the get go to develope our submissive selves and forego our more Domly attributes. The power, as I see it is in those very traits.

This leaves the discussion wide open to people who insist that we submissives hold all the power in our D/s relationship. That's simple brainwashing if you ask me, and like anything else you need to buy into the hype.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Hmm, I still think a Pat would do just fine. There is no need to teach her how to be assertive, because a sub does not need to be assertive in order to submit. Submission is submission, whether you bend them to your will, or if they simply obey you.

Okay, I'm thinking out loud here, so it may be a bit rambling. The difference, I think, between my view of submission and what you've described here is the difference between active and passive submission. One of my problems all along in this discussion is that Pat fully and completely submits to everyone she encounters, whether they are in a position of authority or not. If Pat is going to submit to the waiter at dinner, the clerk in the store, and the bus driver, then how does her submission to you have any value whatsoever? Using the descriptions thus far, Pat would submit to just about anything or anyone that didn't cause her harm. (I realize that's a broad generalization, I'm exaggerating for a reason.) Sure, Pat would do just fine, because she submits to everything and everyone. Being submissive to a Master would be no different for Pat whatsoever. Her life wouldn't really change at all. The question is not whether she submits, we already know that she clearly does. The question is whether she has the ability and desire to submit to a specific someone.

As to the assertive aspect, you're only partially right with that one. I agree with Cati's observations about that, but take it a bit further. First, she has to be assertive enough to express her feelings, to express frustration and anger when they happen. Frankly, if she doesn't have an outlet for those negtative feelings, I would be concerned about her continued mental health. Everyone needs to be assertive enough to be able to communicate all of the emotions they feel. I would worry that Pat doesn't express those things at all, which is not at all healthy. In addition, though, Pat does need to learn to stand up for herself to the degree that she doesn't get harmed or taken advantage of. I'm not convinced that she has that ability at this time. We've only been given one example of her removing herself and her children from a harmful situation. So while she may not need to be assertive in order to submit to you, she does need some level of assertiveness in order to be able to protect herself in her everyday life.

You've made it clear, YC, that her submission would be of value to you. And I understand the reasons you've given for that. What I don't understand is that it sounds like you prefer to keep her almost helpless and vulnerable. I would think you would want her to be able to take care of herself if you can't be there to take care of her yourself.

What we need to remember is that submitting is not the act of giving up power, but the act of giving in to the power of another.

I'm not sure I fully agree with that assessment. Yes, it is giving in to the power of another, but it is also giving up power of your own. Unless you truly have no power of your own. But then I don't agree that you can fully submit to the power of another. Basic philosophical difference.

So in what case could Pats not submit?

You need to read what you quoted again. I didn't say Pat could not submit. I said that there wasn't enough information for me to make that determination. Ultimately, only Pat and her possible Master can make that determination.

 

[YourCaptor]

I believe it is the responsibility of a "good" Master to ensure that his property grows as a person within the relationship. If she is unable to express her true feelings to her Dom (regarding whatever problem she may be having) for fear of displeasing him, or losing his love, then I feel she has to work on becoming more assertive...in her methods of communication and making her needs known to him.

Here's another example, Pat and her Dom are out at a Fetish Club. This is her first time out. He gets up and leaves her sitting at the table while he goes off wandering. An hour later Pat is still sitting alone waiting for him to return. She sees him now and then talking to people, but he makes no gesture for her to come to him. She becomes uncomfortable. What should she do/have done?

a) asked to go with him in the beginning?
b) gone to find him?
c) passed the time by making small talk with her table mates and wait for him to return and say nothing if and when he comes back?
d) walk out the door and not say a word to anyone.

I don’t think insecurity and the inability to express one self are problems that come with submission. The opposite is probably far more prevalent.

Fore example, all the choices would be available to Pat on her date. However if her date specifically told her to stay, choice c would appear to be the only option to Pat.

I agree with you on the second part YC but not the first.
I mean it in the sense of submission being the opposite of Domination, where it is necessary for [us] to suppress our personal power in order to be "more" submissive. Your idea of submission as I see it is more like a person submitting to a higher authority who has "the power" such as an employer, our teachers, the police and so forth.

we all have Dominant and submissive sides right? Right.
As lifestyle "subs" we are advised right from the get go to develope our submissive selves and forego our more Domly attributes. The power, as I see it is in those very traits.

Suppression can be an element of submission, but it is not submission itself.

For example, say someone wants to paint and I say no, take away all their painting supplies, in that situation I am suppressing them. However they say fuck that, and mix their own paint, so I take that, yet they keep fighting. They never once submitted despite me suppressing them.

When you develop your submissiveness you have already accepted submission and are then suppressing, or modifying yourself to match your role.

 

[BeachGurl2]

I believe it is the responsibility of a "good" Master to ensure that his property grows as a person within the relationship. If she is unable to express her true feelings to her Dom (regarding whatever problem she may be having) for fear of displeasing him, or losing his love, then I feel she has to work on becoming more assertive...in her methods of communication and making her needs known to him.

I agree completely with this statement. But even beyond the communication aspect. A 'good' Master wants his pyl to grow as a person, both within the relationship and in life in general. He takes pride in knowing that he has helped her grow. If she has to fear expressing herself, then in my opinion, that relationship has crossed the line between consensual M/s into possible abuse.

(Don't bother flaming me for using the dreaded A word. I know how everyone feels about that.)

 

[BeachGurl2]

When you develop your submissiveness you have already accepted submission and are then suppressing, or modifying yourself to match your role.

I'm not sure I buy that. Would you clarify a bit?

 

[YourCaptor]

I'm not sure I buy that. Would you clarify a bit?

Well, say you didn't submit, what on earth would drive you to suppress yourself? Brute force, abuse?

 

[BeachGurl2]

Well, say you didn't submit, what on earth would drive you to suppress yourself? Brute force, abuse?

Abuse, certainly. But maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you mean by suppressing yourself. Are you saying that for me to submit, I must suppress my natural personality? Hmmm, that I don't buy. So I'd need to hear more about what you specifically mean before really making the determination.

 

[YourCaptor]

Abuse, certainly. But maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you mean by suppressing yourself. Are you saying that for me to submit, I must suppress my natural personality? Hmmm, that I don't buy. So I'd need to hear more about what you specifically mean before really making the determination.

I am saying suppression it is not necessary in order to submit, but it is an element that could be employed to further condense submission.

Suppression described by cati:

I mean it in the sense of submission being the opposite of Domination, where it is necessary for [us] to suppress our personal power in order to be "more" submissive. Your idea of submission as I see it is more like a person submitting to a higher authority who has "the power" such as an employer, our teachers, the police and so forth.

we all have Dominant and submissive sides right? Right.
As lifestyle "subs" we are advised right from the get go to develope our submissive selves and forego our more Domly attributes. The power, as I see it is in those very traits.

 

[Pure]

note to Y C, and cati

Originally Posted by YourCaptor
//What we need to remember is that submitting is not the act of giving up power, but the act of giving in to the power of another.//

interesting point. "giving in" to the power of another is certainly a kind of compliance or order-following. a) a gun is pointed to your head, and you're told to hand over your wallter. you 'give in'.
however in many interactions, esp. with children, withdrawal of one's person or love is a potent threat. b)if my lover and owner says, eat this pound of mud, or i'll leave you, i would likely 'give in'. since i am a male (in fact), i might drum up my macho pride and encourage myself to feel abused at this loss of dignity, and i'd be unenthusiastic, if not repulsed. still, if she has all the cards (e.g. her love being vital to me) *and she plays them,* then i comply, "give in."

i do not, however consider this to be a paradigm of surrender of the kind we're talking, or of service of pet to owner. if i'm someones doggy, i come when called, to please my owner; not because i'm emotionally blackmailed.

in both cases, a) and b), though, there also seems to be 'giving up'. . However in the second case you could question whether i had any power to begin with, e.g. whether my situation is not more like this: c) a parent orders a 4 year old child to eat dogfood as punishment and specifies that she, the parent, will walk out the door if the order isn't complied with.

still, i'm not entirely happy with the line youve taken because of the factor of voluntary association. all the pets or bottoms under consideration, including possibly pat, link up voluntarily. at least in the early phases, they may exit voluntarily. so if they come back or stay, i think they have 'given up' power.

i suppose you might say pat, if told to return for further whipping, will do it, being deficient in self will. ok. this gets into the question whether pat is a pushover to any date or *prospective* dom. in my original description and additions, i suggested *not*--because they are not [yet] 'authorities.'

i do see your point, but i maintain the more 'self' the sub has, the more 'will' of any kind, then the more i think she does 'give up' something if she's being a pet.

Originally Posted by cati
I believe it is the responsibility of a "good" Master to ensure that his property grows as a person within the relationship. If she is unable to express her true feelings to her Dom (regarding whatever problem she may be having) for fear of displeasing him, or losing his love, then I feel she has to work on becoming more assertive...in her methods of communication and making her needs known to him.

this is an old topic, but a good one. i've generally taken the line that a master is not a therapist. neither is a husband. or wife. "ensuring growth" seems like a large task. i will agree, though that an owner, e.g. continuing top, will look to the welfare of the the pet, just as he would in case of an expensive dog. more strongly, the owner does well if the pet thrives. however the owner determines the *mode* of thriving, e.g. if the dog is to run races, go fetch birds shot while hunting, guard the garage or whatever.

thinking hypothetically as a top, i'd say a pet being in a thriving condition makes any surrender sweeter; a pet who's weak and sickly and "surrenders" is not much of a treat. or one who's so browbeaten or terrified that she cringes if the master raises his hand to scratch his nose.

 

[YourCaptor]

Originally Posted by YourCaptor
//What we need to remember is that submitting is not the act of giving up power, but the act of giving in to the power of another.//

interesting point. "giving in" to the power of another is certainly a kind of compliance or order-following. a) a gun is pointed to your head, and you're told to hand over your wallter. you 'give in'.
however in many interactions, esp. with children, withdrawal of one's person or love is a potent threat. b)if my lover and owner says, eat this pound of mud, or i'll leave you, i would likely 'give in'. since i am a male (in fact), i might drum up my macho pride and encourage myself to feel abused at this loss of dignity, and i'd be unenthusiastic, if not repulsed. still, if she has all the cards (e.g. her love being vital to me) *and she plays them,* then i comply, "give in."

i do not, however consider this to be a paradigm of surrender of the kind we're talking, or of service of pet to owner. if i'm someones doggy, i come when called, to please my owner; not because i'm emotionally blackmailed.

in both cases, a) and b), though, there also seems to be 'giving up'. . However in the second case you could question whether i had any power to begin with, e.g. whether my situation is not more like this: c) a parent orders a 4 year old child to eat dogfood as punishment and specifies that she, the parent, will walk out the door if the order isn't complied with.

still, i'm not entirely happy with the line youve taken because of the factor of voluntary association. all the pets or bottoms under consideration, including possibly pat, link up voluntarily. at least in the early phases, they may exit voluntarily. so if they come back or stay, i think they have 'given up' power.

i suppose you might say pat, if told to return for further whipping, will do it, being deficient in self will. ok. this gets into the question whether pat is a pushover to any date or *prospective* dom. in my original description and additions, i suggested *not*--because they are not [yet] 'authorities.'

i do see your point, but i maintain the more 'self' the sub has, the more 'will' of any kind, then the more i think she does 'give up' something if she's being a pet.

Originally Posted by cati
I believe it is the responsibility of a "good" Master to ensure that his property grows as a person within the relationship. If she is unable to express her true feelings to her Dom (regarding whatever problem she may be having) for fear of displeasing him, or losing his love, then I feel she has to work on becoming more assertive...in her methods of communication and making her needs known to him.

this is an old topic, but a good one. i've generally taken the line that a master is not a therapist. neither is a husband. or wife. "ensuring growth" seems like a large task. i will agree, though that an owner, e.g. continuing top, will look to the welfare of the the pet, just as he would in case of an expensive dog. more strongly, the owner does well if the pet thrives. however the owner determines the *mode* of thriving, e.g. if the dog is to run races, go fetch birds shot while hunting, guard the garage or whatever.

thinking hypothetically as a top, i'd say a pet being in a thriving condition makes any surrender sweeter; a pet who's weak and sickly and "surrenders" is not much of a treat. or one who's so browbeaten or terrified that she cringes if the master raises his hand to scratch his nose.

Blackmail nor force is necessary in order for someone to “give in”, or submit.

As I understand it, what you are saying is that the distinction between “giving up power”, and “giving in to power” is that “giving in to power” is not voluntary. This is however not what I meant.

One can “give in” voluntarily, no threat is necessary.

For example, Pat reports a stolen purse, the cop says it’s a trivial matter he can’t be bother with; Pat gives in to his dominance.

Now an example of “giving up”, Brat (for distinction ), Brat reports a stolen purse, the cop says he can’t be bothered, Brat goes nuts and they get into a shouting match making a big scene. In the end Brat is given a fin for disorderly conduct and is warned that obstruction of justice charges could be added. Brat then shuts up, “giving up power” and allowing the cop to be the dominant party.

Both “giving in to power” and “giving up power” can be voluntary and involuntary. The distinction being that in order to “give up power” you must first lower yourself, while in order to “give in to power” you are already lower.

So, in order to submit onc can involve “giving up power”, however ultimately, the act of submitting is “giving in to power”.

Examples a, the one you gave, is not very black and white, it could involve either option. To illustrate the point better you could say

You're told to hand over your wallet, you refuse, a gun is pointed at your head, and you give up.
You're told to hand over your wallet by someone who is dominant to you, you give in.

Your scenario b is actually and example of “giving up” because you are reluctant.
If "giving in" you would simply eat the mud because mistress said so.

Your example, I come when called, to please my owner, is actually an example of "giving in to power".

PS. I didn’t know you where male, I think it was your avatar, very misleading.