A Little Question

[00Syd]

i certainly dont want to tell you how to run your relationship or barge in....but if your Dominant bases his actions on how you will react, i don't see how you are the submissive one of the pair.

Obviously you haven't been hanging around lit long enough to realize how flexible the term "submissive" can be Don't worry, the topic is sure to come up again.

The short version is that the quality "submissive" takes just about as many different forms as the quality "dominant" does, or the quality "competitiveness," for that matter. Does every dominant express his dominance in the same way? Does every competitive person express their competitiveness in the same way? These different expressions of submissiveness and dominance come together in endless variations within relationships, which produce a stunningly different array of dynamics. Like snowflakes, no two will be the same. And one might be as different from another as a raindrop is to a snowflake is to a piece of hail is to an ice cube.


(And I don't know if I would say that my dominant bases his actions on how I will react, but he certainly takes my reactions into close consideration, because he cares how I feel)

 

[00Syd]

OMG, where's the calendar? This is brilliant and needs to be added.

Aw, I'm flattered I've never been added to the calender before

 

[Etoile]

i really dont mean to be like that...and i recognize everyone has their own level of submission and Domination. But i really do get annoyed at how the term submissive has gotten so dumbed down, imho. It all started with this whole "submission is a gift" bullshit, which was essentially the death of BDSM for many.

For ME...and for the Dominants that would interest me....submission involves SUBMITTING. It's not about them cherishing my precious gift. It's not about them making sure they make me happy and give me attention. It's about me fucking submitting...and them being strong enough and consistent enough to keep me in my place.

I DONT want to start a flame war...and i really don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone. But i do think submission has been watered down so much, it just makes me crazy.

But then again...that may not have been the longest journey i've ever taken...

Okay, why didn't you say so in the first place? You said "in my opinion" and "just my 2 cents" but you seemed pretty prescriptive otherwise. Just because YOU are rigid in your definition of submission, doesn't mean everyone is. The rest of us are pretty comfortable with YKIOK. Everybody's different, you know? And quite honestly, you're pulling the "TRUE submissive" stuff, and that doesn't really sit well with just about anybody. There is no TRUE submissive. The only person who should be prescribing what a submissive should be is their dominant - not others.

 

[CuteBrat]

Okay, why didn't you say so in the first place? You said "in my opinion" and "just my 2 cents" but you seemed pretty prescriptive otherwise. Just because YOU are rigid in your definition of submission, doesn't mean everyone is. The rest of us are pretty comfortable with YKIOK. Everybody's different, you know? And quite honestly, you're pulling the "TRUE submissive" stuff, and that doesn't really sit well with just about anybody. There is no TRUE submissive. The only person who should be prescribing what a submissive should be is their dominant - not others.

well...its a fine line. There is no TWU submissive...and i don't mean to be prescriptive. But when you take the concept of SUBMISSION out of the term SUBMISSIVE....i think you're left with a pretty empty set of letters.

To me its like saying there are many shades of blue...there is no one true blue. And therefore, that red wall over there is blue. And i just say...um....really?

 

[00Syd]

i really dont mean to be like that...and i recognize everyone has their own level of submission and Domination. But i really do get annoyed at how the term submissive has gotten so dumbed down, imho. It all started with this whole "submission is a gift" bullshit, which was essentially the death of BDSM for many.

For ME...and for the Dominants that would interest me....submission involves SUBMITTING. It's not about them cherishing my precious gift. It's not about them making sure they make me happy and give me attention. It's about me fucking submitting...and them being strong enough and consistent enough to keep me in my place.

I DONT want to start a flame war...and i really don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone. But i do think submission has been watered down so much, it just makes me crazy.

But then again...that may not have been the longest journey i've ever taken...

I personally don't have a problem with definitions changing over time. The definition of "submissive," for many, has gotten quite a bit broader. This isn't either a good or a bad thing, it just simply is.

I've had quite a bit of struggle with the term submissive in the past (as just about all of Lit can attest), but since I haven't found a better word to describe myself (Although, Homburg's contribution of "sydmissive" is nice), submissive it is. I might not be submissive in the same way the role is traditionally defined, but I have enough of the same qualities and feelings to greater or lesser degrees for me to be able to claim it for my own.

 

[Etoile]

well...its a fine line. There is no TWU submissive...and i don't mean to be prescriptive. But when you take the concept of SUBMISSION out of the term SUBMISSIVE....i think you're left with a pretty empty set of letters.

To me its like saying there are many shades of blue...there is no one true blue. And therefore, that red wall over there is blue. And i just say...um....really?

No, it's not a fine line. Your definition of submission is not the only definition. To use 00Syd as an example, her dominant monitors her needs and adjusts his actions to fit them. Is she topping from the bottom? No, he's being sensitive. That's it. Just because YOU feel she isn't submitting, doesn't mean that she isn't submitting. It just means that her definition is different from yours. The concept is not being taken out at all. It's just not what YOU conceive it to be. And that's okay.

 

[CuteBrat]

I personally don't have a problem with definitions changing over time. The definition of "submissive," for many, has gotten quite a bit broader. This isn't either a good or a bad thing, it just simply is.

I've had quite a bit of struggle with the term submissive in the past (as just about all of Lit can attest), but since I haven't found a better word to describe myself (Although, Homburg's contribution of "sydmissive" is nice), submissive it is. I might not be submissive in the same way the role is traditionally defined, but I have enough of the same qualities and feelings to greater or lesser degrees for me to be able to claim it for my own.

it may be that my personal path of submission has led me to the slave end of the continuum. Maybe my perspective is screwed. But i still think that the OP (remember her?) needs to go within herself....focus on being the best possible submissive she knows how to be...and not expect her Dominant to entertain her. And perhaps, at an appropriate time, ask permission to ask how she could improve.

 

[Etoile]

Aw, I'm flattered I've never been added to the calender before

It seems there wasn't one this year.

 

[CuteBrat]

No, it's not a fine line. Your definition of submission is not the only definition. To use 00Syd as an example, her dominant monitors her needs and adjusts his actions to fit them. Is she topping from the bottom? No, he's being sensitive. That's it. Just because YOU feel she isn't submitting, doesn't mean that she isn't submitting. It just means that her definition is different from yours. The concept is not being taken out at all. It's just not what YOU conceive it to be. And that's okay.

if i had any sense i would walk away by now...but..... ok...i get a Dominant adjusting to his submissives NEEDS. But many times, submissives get their WANTS and NEEDS confused. Having a Dominant adjust his actions based on a submissives WANTS IS topping from the bottom. Going back to the OP...i think she was referring to a WANT, not a NEED. And also letting her own internal anxiety cloud what really is going on.

 

[Etoile]

it may be that my personal path of submission has led me to the slave end of the continuum. Maybe my perspective is screwed. But i still think that the OP (remember her?) needs to go within herself....focus on being the best possible submissive she knows how to be...and not expect her Dominant to entertain her. And perhaps, at an appropriate time, ask permission to ask how she could improve.

It's a new relationship, she's new to submission, and you're telling her to sit down and shut up. Not exactly the healthiest approach. If she has questions, she needs to ask him, and find out what's going on. We haven't heard anything about what type of "silences" they are (minutes? weeks?) and I don't think she said anything about being "entertained" - she has a valid concern and she should raise it with him. If she's told "too bad, deal with it" then she has an answer. But not asking the question? No way.

 

[BiBunny]

Dude, I'm all for not watering down terms to the point that they're essentially meaningless. But a thread about an obvious cyber-wanker is really not the place to pull that discussion out.

 

[Etoile]

if i had any sense i would walk away by now...but..... ok...i get a Dominant adjusting to his submissives NEEDS. But many times, submissives get their WANTS and NEEDS confused. Having a Dominant adjust his actions based on a submissives WANTS IS topping from the bottom. Going back to the OP...i think she was referring to a WANT, not a NEED. And also letting her own internal anxiety cloud what really is going on.

What if the dominant wants to let the submissive choose once in a while? Not just as a reward, but say out of pure laziness? Why should the dominant be the one to choose everything all the time? Is THAT topping from the bottom?

 

[CuteBrat]

Dude, I'm all for not watering down terms to the point that they're essentially meaningless. But a thread about an obvious cyber-wanker is really not the place to pull that discussion out.

i so fucking love Happy Bunny!!!!!!

 

[HottieMama]

In my relationship, my HusDom is VERY concerned about my needs/wants and does base SOME of his actions on how I will react. I wouldn't "submit" to him if he wasn't and didn't, and I certainly would not have stood before my Higher Power, friends, family, etc and married him. While my relationship is not 50/50 in most respects and will never be...it isn't 99/1 either.

I am a person first and foremost. As a person, I have wants/needs/desires that I will seek to meet or have met. No matter what my orientation in this lifestyle, WHY would I deny myself what essentially amounts to fullfillment. (And sorry, as nice as the fantasy is...serving while getting nothing in return really makes me an angry bitch.)

 

[CuteBrat]

It's a new relationship, she's new to submission, and you're telling her to sit down and shut up. Not exactly the healthiest approach. If she has questions, she needs to ask him, and find out what's going on. We haven't heard anything about what type of "silences" they are (minutes? weeks?) and I don't think she said anything about being "entertained" - she has a valid concern and she should raise it with him. If she's told "too bad, deal with it" then she has an answer. But not asking the question? No way.

ok...i agree with that.

 

[Etoile]

Dude, I'm all for not watering down terms to the point that they're essentially meaningless. But a thread about an obvious cyber-wanker is really not the place to pull that discussion out.

It isn't totally obvious - we don't know enough about the situation, IMO - but you are quite right that getting all philosophical is not the purpose of this thread.
*looks up from navel*

 

[Etoile]

ok...i agree with that.

*high-five!*

 

[CuteBrat]

In my relationship, my HusDom is VERY concerned about my needs/wants and does base SOME of his actions on how I will react. I wouldn't "submit" to him if he wasn't and didn't, and I certainly would not have stood before my Higher Power, friends, family, etc and married him. While my relationship is not 50/50 in most respects and will never be...it isn't 99/1 either.

I am a person first and foremost. As a person, I have wants/needs/desires that I will seek to meet or have met. No matter what my orientation in this lifestyle, WHY would I deny myself what essentially amounts to fullfillment. (And sorry, as nice as the fantasy is...serving while getting nothing in return really makes me an angry bitch.)

for me, serving IS getting something in return, in and of itself.

 

[BiBunny]

It isn't totally obvious - we don't know enough about the situation, IMO - but you are quite right that getting all philosophical is not the purpose of this thread.
*looks up from navel*

Meh. I'm just a cynical bitch.

 

[CuteBrat]

*high-five!*

...

 

[HottieMama]

for me, serving IS getting something in return, in and of itself.

Awesome! Totally understand that. While I do get a sense of joy from doing the things that make the HusDom happy, I also enjoy it when he realizes that there must be Diet Pepsi in the fridge at all times and makes sure there is...so that I am happy. (I'm a simple person...LOL.)

 

[00Syd]

if i had any sense i would walk away by now...but..... ok...i get a Dominant adjusting to his submissives NEEDS. But many times, submissives get their WANTS and NEEDS confused. Having a Dominant adjust his actions based on a submissives WANTS IS topping from the bottom. Going back to the OP...i think she was referring to a WANT, not a NEED. And also letting her own internal anxiety cloud what really is going on.

What if the dominant WANTS to do what the submissive WANTS of his own volition? Like, my BF enjoys eating me out. And I want him to do that. And he often does it without my even asking. Am I topping from the bottom?

 

[CuteBrat]

What if the dominant WANTS to do what the submissive WANTS of his own volition? Like, my BF enjoys eating me out. And I want him to do that. And he often does it without my even asking. Am I topping from the bottom?

The two Masters who own me have such different opinions about eating me out. Master also likes to do it...he enjoys making me suffer while i try not to cum without permission...or making me suffer by cumming so much it hurts. Master2 HATES that i am not good enough at orgasm control, so he never does things that will let me cum.

i guess every Dom or Master has his own path.

 

[00Syd]

Hijacking threads with heavy BDSM philosohy turns me on, what can I say?

 

[HottieMama]

What if the dominant WANTS to do what the submissive WANTS of his own volition? Like, my BF enjoys eating me out. And I want him to do that. And he often does it without my even asking. Am I topping from the bottom?

[sarcasm]

Do you really give a shit? I wouldn't... I would keep that man trapped between my thighs till he was begging for air.

[/sarcasm]