a good sub?

[Pure]

note to Y C

those are excellent points! esp. good is your argument that the ultimate point of submission is 'giving in,' and that it can be voluntary or involuntary(i.e coerced).

as to the avatar, i'm an admirer of the female form. are there not a number of males with some 'hot' female avatars? i didn't think it was that unusual.

what do you think of the issue of voluntary association? according to you, i go to my (f) master and she says, 'eat mud,' and i do it without hesitation, i've 'given in,' not having had any power over her in the first place. yet if i do not live at that location (assuming it's her place), i come back on what she describes as "the next day you may come, friday." if i say, "are you ordering me to come Friday?" she says, ftsoa, "certainly not; but tell me now if you choose to come friday and serve in whatever manner i order." i say "i will come friday. and serve." i do.

what is my point? here, admittedly i give in routinely, whenever i'm there at her place. as to getting there, however, sometimes 1) i'm ordered to come back a particular time, sometimes 2) i'm not ordered, and i've focussed, here, on the latter. it seems in such case [2)] i'm making a voluntary choice; and indeed, a series of them (reflecting my commitment). you will say, "that doesn't preclude 'giving in' but i don't see any 'compliance,' 'yielding,' 'order following.' i don't see this (coming on available days) as 'giving in', though it is submitting.

this brings us to one of the ultimate problems. inner compulsion. it's recognized in some courts of law as mitigating or occasionally excusing. i feel a "force" (desire, impulse) inside that i cannot resist. someone says my mother is a whore and i 'can't help' smashing their face.

i think this is where cati's and others' points come into play. supposing ftsoa that there is 'giving in,' as you might say, in both cases, [1) and 2)], isn't there a difference between a) being possessed by an overpowering need to belong to master x, and b) having a more moderate need, accompanied by the thought, "this is what i wish for, what i choose."

beach gurl made a similar point re acting out of fear. strong fear tends to move one to the 'inner compulsion" category. mild or no fear allows the subordinate to make a choice [i.e. category b]. and the latter seems like a more full bodied submission.

i'm afraid the above is hopelessly convoluted, but will leave it for now.

 

[cati]

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.

Taken into account.

What I particularly had in mind is this. Suppose Pat asks to take a course in
"Pottery Making". She claims it would be therapeutic and give her an outlet to her creative talents ... plus she thinks it would be fun. Her Dom on the otherhand, feels that it would be a waste of time and money (even if she is the one paying) and not be conducive to their relationship, so he suggests she take a cooking course or belly dancing instead, something that "he" deems worthwhile.

Pat argues that the course would be therapeutic for her, would give her a social outlet, add to her creative talents and more importantly it would make her happy. She thinks about making a beautiful soup bowl for him, a little somethng she made personally.

Her Master tells her she can take Belly Dancing or Tai Cooking, her choice.
Pat is unhappy about his decision but says nothing, she doesn't wish to displease him and so she suppresses her disappointment and anger?. She doesn't understand why he won't let her take the pottery class. Pat signs up for Belly Dancing, but isn't a very enthusiastic participant.

(It would seem her Master isn't very interested in her happiness or personal growth)
______________

I feel that a Master is a "kind of therapist" or at least have some sort of insight into the emotional state of their subs, simply because so many come with personal baggage. They don't want to push their buttons unintentionally.

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.

Oh I totally agree with you!

The point that I made earlier about having a sense of self and being able to assert oneself would apply here, things one should look into before one submits.

Pure, please define "thriving condition" ... what it means to you personally.

YC... I didn't know Pure was a male until I went back and read some of his posts.. that was quite a while ago *s

 

[Pure]

note to cati, on the example: pottery class

What I particularly had in mind is this. Suppose Pat asks to take a course in

"Pottery Making". She claims it would be therapeutic and give her an outlet to her creative talents ... plus she thinks it would be fun. Her Dom on the other hand, feels that it would be a waste of time and money (even if she is the one paying) and not be conducive to their relationship, so he suggests she take a cooking course or belly dancing instead, something that "he" deems worthwhile.

Pat argues that the course would be therapeutic for her, would give her a social outlet, add to her creative talents and more importantly it would make her happy. She thinks about making a beautiful soup bowl for him, a little somethng she made personally.

Her Master tells her she can take Belly Dancing or Thai Cooking, her choice. Pat is unhappy about his decision but says nothing, she doesn't wish to displease him and so she suppresses her disappointment and anger?. She doesn't understand why he won't let her take the pottery class. Pat signs up for Belly Dancing, but isn't a very enthusiastic participant.

(It would seem her Master isn't very interested in her happiness or personal growth)
-------------

pure: nice example, illustrating the points at issue.

first i don't see how the last sentence follows. you seem to be assuming a) the master is *routinely* vetoing such projects, and b) he never suggests an alternative in the least bit fulfilling, but only of immediate use to him, like thai cooking.

in a word, i think you confuse 1) a simple "item" veto with 2) an entirely self serving progam of suppression of valid desires, for no reason other than the master showing control. 2) makes the master seem quite insecure, approaching what mgiht be called, 'abuse'.

to illustrate the vast difference. suppose these additional facts about your example. pat has taken pottery courses before. all her pots have been disasters. she ended up crying and tearing her hair. the master does not want this both for her sake, and because her sexual services suffer if she's so distraught.

when i have a secure master, she does not micro manage. IF there is a lower level intervention (order) such as you describe, i assume there's a reason. to assume otherwise is not simply to consider her arbitrary (which is her right and station), but malicious or spiteful (whatever the pet really wants, i'll almost always veto it). (i'm reminded, in similar regard, of Einstein's famous statement: "Subtle is the Lord God, but malicious he is not.")

that said, although i don't consider either a master or lover having a duty to further the other's development, the mature and secure one does not *stand in the way* (routinely and for no reason except control). the human master can be best served by a thriving sub/pet.
----

Pure, please define "thriving condition" ... what it means to you personally.

pure: probably you know the usual 'needs hierarchy,' e.g. in maslow? one starts with physical needs, then borderline ones, like being touched, then emotional needs, e.g. feeling secure. then come midlevel needs [the term desire also applies at this level] to develop normally (perhaps a kid's need for a bicycle; the adult male's need to have a couple hi tech toys), and lastly (perhaps) needs [desires, drive] for the extraordinary, e.g., Gauguin's doing his art, becoming a great artist.

thriving means reaching mid level; being "given" it and/or allowed it. the reason i say 'allowed' is that the erotic master is not ordinarily in charge of feeding her subject, but she will allow, indeed promote, a sense of security.

if i'm thriving, i'm typically happy, or maybe just unconcerned with happiness. i'm 'living well.' (i've postulated, above, that pat is happy, you will remember; her problem,*if she has one* is in self determination). oddly enough, those serving the 'highest' needs experience moments of fulfillment, but also intense unhappiness, even despair. Gauguin tried to kill himself on at least one occasion (iirc, money and health probs).

 

[cati]

nods... well, maybe making a good pot is important to Pat and she really wants to master the craft.
Chuckles at the notion of pot disasters 1-6 effecting their sex life.

 

[YourCaptor]

those are excellent points! esp. good is your argument that the ultimate point of submission is 'giving in,' and that it can be voluntary or involuntary(i.e coerced).

as to the avatar, i'm an admirer of the female form. are there not a number of males with some 'hot' female avatars? i didn't think it was that unusual.

what do you think of the issue of voluntary association? according to you, i go to my (f) master and she says, 'eat mud,' and i do it without hesitation, i've 'given in,' not having had any power over her in the first place. yet if i do not live at that location (assuming it's her place), i come back on what she describes as "the next day you may come, friday." if i say, "are you ordering me to come Friday?" she says, ftsoa, "certainly not; but tell me now if you choose to come friday and serve in whatever manner i order." i say "i will come friday. and serve." i do.

what is my point? here, admittedly i give in routinely, whenever i'm there at her place. as to getting there, however, sometimes 1) i'm ordered to come back a particular time, sometimes 2) i'm not ordered, and i've focussed, here, on the latter. it seems in such case [2)] i'm making a voluntary choice; and indeed, a series of them (reflecting my commitment). you will say, "that doesn't preclude 'giving in' but i don't see any 'compliance,' 'yielding,' 'order following.' i don't see this (coming on available days) as 'giving in', though it is submitting.

this brings us to one of the ultimate problems. inner compulsion. it's recognized in some courts of law as mitigating or occasionally excusing. i feel a "force" (desire, impulse) inside that i cannot resist. someone says my mother is a whore and i 'can't help' smashing their face.

i think this is where cati's and others' points come into play. supposing ftsoa that there is 'giving in,' as you might say, in both cases, [1) and 2)], isn't there a difference between a) being possessed by an overpowering need to belong to master x, and b) having a more moderate need, accompanied by the thought, "this is what i wish for, what i choose."

beach gurl made a similar point re acting out of fear. strong fear tends to move one to the 'inner compulsion" category. mild or no fear allows the subordinate to make a choice [i.e. category b]. and the latter seems like a more full bodied submission.

i'm afraid the above is hopelessly convoluted, but will leave it for now.

Hmmm...

That is an interesting point.

A sub who's total inner compulsion is only to serve me best, that is the object of my fantasy's.

I personally think it is the higher form of submission, (as opposed to voluntary association) if the dom instilled it that is, otherwise I think it would just be annoying.

It may be the romantic in me

So you are asking how does "giving in to power" stand if voluntary association is the higher form of submission? Thats whats I gathered at least.

My answer to that would be romantic in nature... again.

I would say that their is an underlying force that binds the sub to master. The sub does not chose to go serve master out of the blue, their is something subconscious at work.

Sorry about subconscious slipping in their, I'll try to think off an argument that is better suited for discussion. Hmm... unfortunately at the moment my brain is sauerkraut, its finals week, all I see is Japanese, and biology.

Anyway, I will keep this in mind.

PS. I don’t know why, but the avatar and your writing made me think you where a women. Sorry about that, it doesn't change anything, except that I now know another guy who submits, which is cool because I don't know too many.

 

[cati]

Does Pure submit? I don't know that he said that... did he say that about himself?
He did say he was a Top....didn't he? He says so many things.
Maybe a switch?
Anyway, I remember why I stopped posting in one of Pure's threads a while back, just too much for my brain.

I smell sauerkraut cooking!

 

[cati]

that said, although i don't consider either a master or lover having a duty to further the other's development,


I respect your comment. However, I don't agree with you Pure, but that's neither here nor there, and once again it's what "we" are looking for in our Dom/me.
You are right on I spose...I mean who has time to micro-manage? yet some may prefer it, others not. But tell me would it make a difference if your sub/pet lived with you 24/7?


Gauguin tried to kill himself on at least one occasion (iirc, money and health probs).

Well I'm not surprised with the cost of travel back in the day. Gauguin contracted syphilis if I'm not mistaken. He's the one who had the rather offbeat relationship with VanGogh isn't he?
Plus, his paintings didn't sell for ages. Enough to drive a man to drink...did Gauguin drink as well?
...but you already know his personal history.


and you were right YC, Pure seems to be a switch, switching positions arbitrarily at that!..weg

 

[Pure]

note to yc and cati

yc said,

except that I now know another guy submits,

cati said,

//Pure seems to be a switch, switching positions arbitrarily at that!..//

although i've topped on occasion, essentially i'm an owned pet to The One i love. in postings, however, i often like to consider both sides, perhaps seeming 'arbitrary' or 'switchy'; but my knowlege of being a top is limited and speculative.

 

[cati]

switching positions arbitrarily at that!.

pokes him....umm it was just a joke dude

 

[YourCaptor]

I am curious Pure, you said your submission sometimes goes into voluntary association, what is it that motivates you to do so?

 

[BeachGurl2]

Okay, well I'll admit I didn't know Pure's gender either. But I rarely worry too much about that anyway. I talk from a straight female sub perspective because that's my world view, not because of any political leanings within the lifestyle. I hate the whole pronoun problem and since I hold a BA in English, it's difficult for me to use plural pronouns as a substitute.

That said, this discussion has been really enjoyable. Sorry I haven't been able to post to it lately but I have been reading.

 

[Pure]

note to your captor

your captor said //I am curious Pure, you said your submission sometimes goes into voluntary association, what is it that motivates you to do so?//

well, y c, i want to stay on the thread topic more than give autobiography. but let's say that pet and owner, as in my case, will get together when possible and convenient, as do all bonded pairs who don't live together or who are separated by distance. my motivation for meeting would be love and desire, as is surely the case universally.

this is relevant to the thread topic and your theory of 'giving in' as follows. i suggested that while 'giving in' may account for what a hypothetical pet does with her owner, it does not account for the pet's going there; she may be rarely ordered to do so, for it's hardly necessary.

so the larger frame [going] is voluntary, regardless of how we see the smaller frame [what's done together]. i tend to see the latter as 'giving up' in the best case. you tend to see the prototype of "submission" as 'giving in,' and i agree you have a good case.

this 'voluntary' characterization would likely apply to many 'not living together' but who have some sort of 'power arrangement'.

now you might say, 'ok it's voluntary' but she's still giving in: you might suggest she is pressured by her master or afraid of him, etc. so you might propose that the pet 'gives in.' but i don't see her, in our example, as necessarily feeling fear. she is arguably neither 'giving up' (directly) nor 'giving in'.

if asked, she may say that she has the feeling that, in some larger sense, she "has to be there"** (this is my feeling too). but if i feel subject to such necessity on a cosmic scale, this does not mean that i feel coercion or pressure or am 'giving in' on the smaller scale; i go to see my master because i have to, but equally because of my needs, including to be hers.

----

**y c put the same point in his words: The sub does not chose to go serve master out of the blue, there is something subconscious at work.

 

[Pure]

about submissives

national leather assoc

Some people within the BDSM community have the misconception that submissives want to relinquish power to a dominant partner because they cannot handle that power, because their life does not work when they are in control of it or because they are passive or weak. A healthy submissive is usually none of these things. They are someone whose life actually works well; they have good relationships with their friends, make appropriate safety and partnering choices for themselves and can operate independently with a high level of self-sufficiency. Many submissives are very careful about whom they choose to become involved with because they believe their submission is valuable and they want to safeguard themselves against abuse or maltreatment.

i wonder if "pat" fits the bill, here? commments? do you agree with the above characterization?

 

[BeachGurl2]

national leather assoc

Some people within the BDSM community have the misconception that submissives want to relinquish power to a dominant partner because they cannot handle that power, because their life does not work when they are in control of it or because they are passive or weak. A healthy submissive is usually none of these things. They are someone whose life actually works well; they have good relationships with their friends, make appropriate safety and partnering choices for themselves and can operate independently with a high level of self-sufficiency. Many submissives are very careful about whom they choose to become involved with because they believe their submission is valuable and they want to safeguard themselves against abuse or maltreatment.

i wonder if "pat" fits the bill, here? commments? do you agree with the above characterization?

Isn't it interesting how many misconceptions there are about submissives? The one thing that I find interesting is how, when I use the word 'submissive' with someone who is unfamiliar with the lifestyle or BDSM, their immediate reaction is 'weak and passive'. And since I've done the online dating game, I often found myself wading into those uncharted waters. It was pretty easy to tell the ones who might be kinky from the ones who had no interest whatsoever!

I think the above is true to a large degree. I am completely self-sufficient. I hold a very good job, am college educated, have raised my daughters successfully. I maintain a home (apartment). I also tend to be the one my friends and family come to when they need emotional support. I am not needy or weak or unable to take care of myself. In fact, in my case, I'm very opinionated, headstrong, assertive, in many, many ways. When I'm in a relationship, it must be with someone who is very strong, someone who can 'manage' me. Because while I'm what I call very naturally submissive (I lean toward serving/nurturing at all times), I'm used to being the one who handles everything, does everything, takes care of everything. I am very selective, which is probably why dating hasn't worked out really well for me. While I enjoy the company of a variety of people, there are only a few personality types that can really bring out my most 'submissiveness'.

But, Pure, I think that the lifestyle, by its very nature, attracts people who are weak and needy, just as it attracts those who are abusive and narcissistic to an unhealthy degree. I think there are many misconceptions out there, not just among the vanilla crowd, but even within the lifestyle community itself, because of this. So as submissives, we have to constantly defend ourselves against those who view us as basically weak and needy. Just as dominants have to constantly defend themselves against those who just see them as abusive assholes. It's the nature of the beast. The frustrating part is not when you come across vanillas with those attitudes, but when you come across those within the lifestyle who have them.

As to your question about Pat, I truly don't believe we have enough information to really make that determination. Again, if she is mentally healthy and interested in the lifestyle, then she would probably make a good pet or sub. If she is not mentally healthy, is a person without spirit or will of her own, then no, she would not.

 

[Kajira Callista]

yc said,

except that I now know another guy submits,

cati said,

//Pure seems to be a switch, switching positions arbitrarily at that!..//

although i've topped on occasion, essentially i'm an owned pet to The One i love. in postings, however, i often like to consider both sides, perhaps seeming 'arbitrary' or 'switchy'; but my knowlege of being a top is limited and speculative.

I'm confused. Pure is not a boy nor is he/she a dominant type person? I miss too much going to school,I think I need to stay home more.

 

[Pure]

note to kaj

kaj, beach gurl, cati.

hi,

i thought my sex was pretty well known. male. as to the rest, see posting above (#133). i'm an owned pet to the One i love.

 

[BeachGurl2]

kaj, beach gurl, cati.

hi,

i thought my sex was pretty well known. male. as to the rest, see posting above (#133). i'm an owned pet to the One i love.

I'm sorry, Pure. I hope that I didn't hurt your feelings. I just don't really pay that much attention to gender beyond looking at avs. And sometimes names. Beyond that, I just plain don't pay much attention to whether the poster is male, female or something in between. I've got it now. Promise.

 

[Pure]

note to beach gurl

As to your question about Pat, I truly don't believe we have enough information to really make that determination. Again, if she is mentally healthy and interested in the lifestyle, then she would probably make a good pet or sub. If she is not mentally healthy, is a person without spirit or will of her own, then no, she would not.

i'm leaning that way, myself, the last option, though i first of all took the first. in re reading about pat, even with the additions, i see that mainly her deference to authority is stressed. now one could argue she's make an excellent traditional wife. but how she would fare as a sexual sub, a pet, and erotic slave, it's hard to say.

note that this is somewhat the conclusion of the 'type A' thread. simply knowing 'type A' [driving, perfectionistic, time conscious]is *not enough*. naively one might think it militates agaist "good subbing", just as we might naively think pat's leanings [obedient to civil authorities] conduces to good subbing.

 

[YourCaptor]

your captor said //I am curious Pure, you said your submission sometimes goes into voluntary association, what is it that motivates you to do so?//

well, y c, i want to stay on the thread topic more than give autobiography. but let's say that pet and owner, as in my case, will get together when possible and convenient, as do all bonded pairs who don't live together or who are separated by distance. my motivation for meeting would be love and desire, as is surely the case universally.

this is relevant to the thread topic and your theory of 'giving in' as follows. i suggested that while 'giving in' may account for what a hypothetical pet does with her owner, it does not account for the pet's going there; she may be rarely ordered to do so, for it's hardly necessary.

so the larger frame [going] is voluntary, regardless of how we see the smaller frame [what's done together]. i tend to see the latter as 'giving up' in the best case. you tend to see the prototype of "submission" as 'giving in,' and i agree you have a good case.

this 'voluntary' characterization would likely apply to many 'not living together' but who have some sort of 'power arrangement'.

now you might say, 'ok it's voluntary' but she's still giving in: you might suggest she is pressured by her master or afraid of him, etc. so you might propose that the pet 'gives in.' but i don't see her, in our example, as necessarily feeling fear. she is arguably neither 'giving up' (directly) nor 'giving in'.

if asked, she may say that she has the feeling that, in some larger sense, she "has to be there"** (this is my feeling too). but if i feel subject to such necessity on a cosmic scale, this does not mean that i feel coercion or pressure or am 'giving in' on the smaller scale; i go to see my master because i have to, but equally because of my needs, including to be hers.

----

**y c put the same point in his words: The sub does not chose to go serve master out of the blue, there is something subconscious at work.

I think its important to keep in mind that in order to “give in to power”, there is no threat of any kind necessary. All that is needed is a dominant party and a submissive one, actions may not even be needed. Dominance and submission are hard wired into human nature, it may not always be black and white, but it always has a large roll in human social dynamics.

“Giving in to power” does not even require a presents. The sub for example has learned that master does not want the sub to do whatever, then even when master is not their the sub wont do it. The sub knows not to do it, and accepts it so as if it where the subs own thought.

Fear is actually more part of “giving up”, the only time when fear is used and the person “gives in” is when they would have “given in” even if their was no fear. In short, fear is a tool used to force people to “give up”.



When a sub goes to meet with master voluntarily, the reason why I think largely depends on the sub.

For example the weekend sort of sub that has a lot of sway in their daily life voluntarily comes to master for the experience. That decision is the first stem in deconstructing their dominant nature. Next they have to give up their power, something that for many may be the climax of the experience. Finally they will be able to simply give in to power, this would be where that humble, everything is right with the world feelings would be.

However a pat type person may be motivated to see master simply because pat knows it will make master happy. Pat will give in to master at all times, their is no deconstruction process.

In between the extreams, the motive for going could be anything from love to thrills.

 

[ownedsubgal]

national leather assoc

Some people within the BDSM community have the misconception that submissives want to relinquish power to a dominant partner because they cannot handle that power, because their life does not work when they are in control of it or because they are passive or weak. A healthy submissive is usually none of these things. They are someone whose life actually works well; they have good relationships with their friends, make appropriate safety and partnering choices for themselves and can operate independently with a high level of self-sufficiency. Many submissives are very careful about whom they choose to become involved with because they believe their submission is valuable and they want to safeguard themselves against abuse or maltreatment.

i wonder if "pat" fits the bill, here? commments? do you agree with the above characterization?

interesting that the quote above comes from the National Leather Association. for their intents and purposes, as representatives of the BDSM (note, NOT D/s) lifestyle, i would agree with their assessment.

however some of us lean more towards the D/s worldview than the leather/bdsm worldview. i'm one who views D/s at its most basic, as a relationship between one who is dominant by nature and one who is submissive by nature. this is taking the terms a bit literally, and completely outside of any formal lifestyle context, as i don't believe such relationships are limited to those who know and use the terminology.

so with that said, imo a person who is passive by nature, compliant and obedient at times to their own detriment, and unable to live a productive and functional life independently, while they may not do so well in the vanilla world, can flourish and thrive within a D/s relationship with the right Dominant/Master, and could absolutely make an excellent sub or slave. contrary to popular belief, many Dominants find great value in such a submissive.

however as far as pat, Pure seems hesitant to label her as naturally submissive, so perhaps she may not fall into that category. she may simply have been trained to be obedient and compliant from an early age, and never questioned such...making her not submissive so much as conditioned. if this is true, then a D/s relationship may still be to her benefit as she may still need the guidance and direction.

 

[Netzach]

Some people who are submissive in public life are submissive in private life, to their enjoyment and benefit. Some aren't. Some are dominant. It really doesn't correlate perfectly so the idea that someone HAS to be this totally effective independent person all the time to be a good sub doesn't work for me, nor does the idea that they can't be - either.

Pat could be anything behind closed doors, really.

 

[YourCaptor]

Pat could be anything behind closed doors, really.

This is true, their is always that possibility. Once outside the public eye sort of thing.

That totally wrecks the argument though, since this is all about correlations between Pat and Pats D/s life.

But yes, their is always that chance that Pat could be the biggest power hungry animal ever once behind closed doors.

 

[Pure]

note to YC

Netz: Pat could be anything behind closed doors, really.

YC This is true, their is always that possibility. Once outside the public eye sort of thing.

That totally wrecks the argument though, since this is all about correlations between Pat and Pats D/s life.

But yes, their is always that chance that Pat could be the biggest power hungry animal ever once behind closed doors.
====
pure: good points, yc. we are speculating outside the original question and data. would she make a good sub or pet; would it be good for her.

let me ask you this. in encountering a 'pat' and supposing she was, in bedroom and othewise, ultra and non reflectingly obedient--and quite placid about it--would you become somewhat bored after a bit. don't you like to see a bit of (non willed) resistance, e.g "master, i've already sucked off four of your friends, i can hardly bear another lot of them."

 

[YourCaptor]

Netz: Pat could be anything behind closed doors, really.

YC This is true, their is always that possibility. Once outside the public eye sort of thing.

That totally wrecks the argument though, since this is all about correlations between Pat and Pats D/s life.

But yes, their is always that chance that Pat could be the biggest power hungry animal ever once behind closed doors.
====
pure: good points, yc. we are speculating outside the original question and data. would she make a good sub or pet; would it be good for her.

let me ask you this. in encountering a 'pat' and supposing she was, in bedroom and othewise, ultra and non reflectingly obedient--and quite placid about it--would you become somewhat bored after a bit. don't you like to see a bit of (non willed) resistance, e.g "master, i've already sucked off four of your friends, i can hardly bear another lot of them."

Ha ha, of course, that is cute at times.

There is a difference between a sub and a zombie.

I don’t hide the fact that I need a sub, without her my life just inst up to par. Everything seems to lack in some way. If Pat totally dropped her personality, she would basically be an extension of my will, that’s no fun. I need that social interaction, not just masturbation. You know what I mean?

I seem to be pretty good at making girls squirm in a half-hearted manor, so I don’t see it ever becoming a problem. I allow my subs/slaves to be who they are, they have a huge amount of freedom, I really don’t care what they do as long as I get what I want.

However I still consider Pats to be very, very sexy. Assuming of course that Pat does have a brain and personality.

For example ownedsubgal, she embraces total submission, yet obviously she is still herself.

 

[Pure]

note to y c

'pat' is a construct for purposes of discussion. happily obedient.

many parts of her were unspecified, so people can 'project' what they like, and discuss.

i quite admire a number of discussants, here, including osg. i have no wish to question them as persons, or their choices.