Submissive's Purpose

[Richard49]

Just an observation at this point

IMHO
There is a major difference between top/bottom relationships
and D/s relationships

 

[lark sparrow]

Just an observation at this point

IMHO
There is a major difference between top/bottom relationships
and D/s relationships

What is the difference IYHO? I agree BTW, just curious about an expansion on what the actual difference is and how it relates to the purpose of the submissive.

 

[Richard49]

Something written from a female submissive on another discussion list


Bottom line... my purpose is to be used for His
pleasure. anything, anytime, anywhere. But there is
so much to that. Every decision i make is with the
thought "how will this affect or reflect on Master".
I handle the boring mundane details of life so that He
can simply relax after a hard days work. He has only
a passing aquaintance with His washer and dryer. When
the furnace was on the fritz, Master wasnt really even
aware until after it was fixed. When He arived home
yesterday, the lawn was cut so He could put His feet
up and relax with a drink and game of chess while
bbqing. My reward for serving Him well is the chance
to sit at His feet while He relaxes, or rub His
shoulder until He falls asleep. My pleasure is in His
pleasure. My reward for serving Him... is the
opportunity to continue serving Him... to earn His
collar every day...

but then, i am slave, not sub...

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

You know, I keep reading that the "Purpose of a sub is to please, and serve". It's funny, but I loose sight of that when I'm tying them down, and fucking them. If anything, the Top serves, and pleases the sub, depending how you look at it.
There is no purpose, it's something they like to do. We're lovers, and lovers serve, and please each other. While in a Ds relationship, there's a nominal Top, and bottom, I usually see myself doing more work, than the sub, and they get more pleasure out of it.
The purpose of the sub is to love unconditionally, and to obey.

I've occasionally felt this myself...that I am being 'forced' to serve my sub, in a way, because her desire is to be spanked, flogged, etc. What I have been learning, however, is that don't have to do any of that. I don't have to tie her up if I don't want to. My mood, my desire, is what matters, not what she wants. If our desires for certain behavior match, it is wonderful, but for me, the only desire a sub should concern herself with is the desire to serve my needs.

 

[lark sparrow]

Originally posted by Richard49
Something written from a female submissive on another discussion list

<snip>Every decision i make is with the
thought "how will this affect or reflect on Master". <snip>

This is an important part of surrender as handed down to me by Mistress. I am used to being quite independent so as always it is a work in progress. Care and concern are common and natural in love though - how will this decision effect my wife/husband/lover/kids/family/dog/Dominant/submissive/etc.? and seem more of a life partner trait rather than that exclusive to the submissive realm. Though a submissive takes it a step further and asks what would Mistress/Master wish of me - again accepting their choosen Dominant's values as their own. I think this could be one of the separations between bottom and submissive - in lasting and continuous depth of surrender.

I handle the boring mundane details of life so that He
can simply relax after a hard days work. He has only
a passing aquaintance with His washer and dryer. When
the furnace was on the fritz, Master wasnt really even
aware until after it was fixed. When He arived home
yesterday, the lawn was cut so He could put His feet
up and relax with a drink and game of chess while
bbqing. My reward for serving Him well is the chance
to sit at His feet while He relaxes, or rub His
shoulder until He falls asleep. My pleasure is in His
pleasure. My reward for serving Him... is the
opportunity to continue serving Him... to earn His
collar every day...

but then, i am slave, not sub...

If I was not working outside of the home and She was, then I can easily understand the full maintenance of house and meals falling to me, but as we see it, these sort of things can be divided up (by Her). She has no interest in sitting around waiting, while I am busy elsewhere doing everything that is considered mundane. This wouldn't leave for much quality time between us after our individual outside work or in sharing of the realities of life as D/s partners. From these examples alone his involvement seems rather minimal, and I know it probably doesn't sum up the entirety of their relationship but her personal expression of her purpose that day.

In general terms D/s nor Topping and bottoming are defined by housework division or non-division, though housework could be a service in either a vanilla or BDSM context. But being a housewife or husband or a butler, maid, chef, janitor or even a real third world slave laborer does not necessarily make one a submissive, a bottom or into BDSM.

 

[ownedsubgal]

my primary purpose, as a submissive, even if i did not have a Master, is to serve, to please, and be used.

 

[lancemanyon]

Something written from a female submissive on another discussion list


Bottom line... my purpose is to be used for His
pleasure. anything, anytime, anywhere. But there is
so much to that. Every decision i make is with the
thought "how will this affect or reflect on Master".
I handle the boring mundane details of life so that He
can simply relax after a hard days work. He has only
a passing aquaintance with His washer and dryer. When
the furnace was on the fritz, Master wasnt really even
aware until after it was fixed. When He arived home
yesterday, the lawn was cut so He could put His feet
up and relax with a drink and game of chess while
bbqing. My reward for serving Him well is the chance
to sit at His feet while He relaxes, or rub His
shoulder until He falls asleep. My pleasure is in His
pleasure. My reward for serving Him... is the
opportunity to continue serving Him... to earn His
collar every day...

but then, i am slave, not sub...

Jeez. No wonder your SO left you. What a horseshit attitude towards another human being.

 

[sexymom]

"Jeez. No wonder your SO left you. What a horseshit attitude towards another human being."


__________________
Love, Lance

Poor Lance- you just don't get it, do you ??

 

[lady-kat]

edited.

 

[lady-kat]

edited.

 

[Shadowsdream]

The purpose that *A* submissive has that fits for Me is...
To desire and need to complete the circle of Domination and submission...the desire and need to give up the amount of control and responsibility that the Dominant desires and needs to take.
To serve the Dominant in ways that enhances the lifestyle of both within the structure of pride and self respect.
To be the reflection of the training of the One who holds them in safety and in strength.
Their purpose is to give and to take...honestly...openly and without guilt or deception.

 

[Pure]

Just a couple aberrant opinions from a part timer:

Miss T said

That is the bottom line. When two people are deeply into their headspace, there is no other purpose, no other choice, but for the submissive to fulfill their role and serve.

Now, how this happens and when this happens will be identified within the context of who he/she is and the relationship he/she is in. Nevertheless, at some point in that D/s relationship, the Dominant expects service and the submissive's purpose is to serve.

The context of the relationship is emphasized. Similarly in Lark S's posting. And the context is chosen.

To subprincess, pleasure kitten, Anelize, apet4u, ownsubgal, and some other, when you say the purpose is total service, the pleasure of Him, etc., wouldn't it be correct that you chose the dom?

If so, you chose the manner of service, the types of 'pleasures' you minister to--be it cleaning Eb's house, or cutting the lawn so the master can relax, etc. Rarely, I think, is a sub chosen from a line-up and carted away by the master. (Old fashioned slave auction, southern style.)

This applies as well to the articulate analyses and insights of Lark S, e.g,


One primary would be to obey - to submit myself to the Dominant. But in submitting my entire self, they are also going to get someone who can be a bit sassy, challenging, independent and somewhat critical. I don't have much of a "service" mentality - I obey Her because I have a need to surrender to One, Her brand of dominance inspires my submission and it is my wish to please Her because I love and respect Her - being pleasing and serving in general terms has never been a huge concern for me. I don't have a terribly submissive surface.

In submitting, I am receiving many of Her values and making them my own.

That is a nice phrase, 'her brand of dominance inspires my submission.' So you, Lark S chose that brand and rejected others, for instance those wanting merely a lot of asexual floor scrubbing.

So one reads 'receiving many of her values' in a particular way.
Lark S, have already chosen her, now 'receives many of her values' and they aren't likely a complete surprise. Lark S, then, chose the values in choosing the inculcater, just as I choose values if I enrol in a catholic seminary or rabbinical school and undergo their training.

Further, 'many' says 'not all'. Some apparently are not for Lark S., after all, she has her own temperament, style and sharp mind. She accepts some values and leaves others aside, and presumably that's not defying the domme, since the domme likely sees this selection rather clearly. And accepts it. The domme prizes independence in some areas and modes, rather than clone-hood.

And that is the domme LS has chosen, ensuring preservation of some of the 'essentially LS' characteristics.

One can see then the reason for some of the remarks of John Mayberry, along the lines of 'who's serving who.' In cases where the domme is picked (most cases), there is an expectation of a certain range of demands, with certain limits etc. The dom/me, being honorable, stays pretty much in that range (pushing some limits that are agreed to be 'pushable'), and so, in a manner of speaking, 'serves'; he or she is, as it were, 'bound'.

Another way of getting at this issue is to say pleasurekitten, subprincess, apet4you, Anelize, what are your expectations in the relationship where you serve? For instance, in those cases where love is given, is love expected in return? A couple posters have said as much. Wouldn't it be fair then, if we suppose you're in a relationship satisfying your expectations, to say that you please yourself and much as, and equally to, your pleasing Him?

I leave the eloquent complexities of Ms Netzach to another posting.

Just some wonderings, and thanks for listening.

J.

 

[Netzach]

Lark Sparrow has expressed much of what I'm referring to, in perhaps a more specific framework. It's simply too much a tautology for me to say "a submissive submits" and leave it at that, what she's done is explain that essential kernel of what submission means, it's to permit another experience to take hold, one that's not part of our own preferred patterns, one imposed by another person or another source.

In my case, that's a very selective, autonomous process. Development is a key word in my vocabulary -- I don't train a boy or a girl, I develop them. Discipline is a means whereby I ensure that they are doing what they ought to be doing to be the person they wanted to be in the first place.

An extreme illustration, very extreme, is the gun-to-the-head scene in Fight Club. Discipline serves to highlight the objectives in the first place. Wanna quit smoking? Then we can work on that, don't complain when you pay the price for the puff.

What do I get out of it? Oddly enough it's altruistic, I'm part of something that's bigger than myself, It plugs me into a spiritual dimension and space.

 

[lark sparrow]

<snipped>What do I get out of it? Oddly enough it's altruistic, I'm part of something that's bigger than myself, It plugs me into a spiritual dimension and space.

I'm really glad you brought this point up. I am fairly agnostic myself, although I assume there is at least a natural force/power that is larger than all of us which has yet to be understood or controlled. I don't consider Mistress a Goddess, but I do find a sense of spirituality in our D/s connection and my surrender to Her. We all get our life lessons somewhere, and BDSM is often where I find and work on mine.

And from the Dominant perspective for just a moment, I have to say what a diverse and rich exchange of ideas from from the likes of Netzach, Shadowsdream, Ebonyfire and many others here. What a pleasure to read and ponder the personal perspective of the other side of the equation! These BB discussions tend to lead to one-on-ones with Mistress regarding these ideas and further exploration of our relationship and my place with Her. Good stuff!

 

[ownedsubgal]

to respond to Pure, my Master and i chose each other. but my purpose as a submissive is by no means limited to my Master. i am submissive with, or without a Master. my purpose as a submissive is to please and serve others, period. that's just the "role" i fit into naturally in life. not a choice.

 

[Pure]

Hi OSG,

to respond to Pure, my Master and i chose each other. but my purpose as a submissive is by no means limited to my Master. i am submissive with, or without a Master. my purpose as a submissive is to please and serve others, period. that's just the "role" i fit into naturally in life. not a choice.

I'm agnostic about 'subs' by nature, or born subs. Some gays say 'born gay, no choice." I'm het and maybe born that way, or it's 'a role I fit into naturally'. OK, assuming you are born sub, there are a variety of masters, from the less to the more severe, the ones in love with titles and the use 'Exalted Sir', ones who have more or less culture, or sensitivity. Is it fair to say then, that your choice reflects what you expect in these dimensions? (Just as my choice of all the het partners, from wild to conventional, etc reflects my tastes)

I think there probably are 'destinies' --as in destined to be a poet.
But two cautions; what a person feels at say 15 or 20 to be their destiny may not be, depending on their depth. Second, it ain't necessarily easy, if you read the lives of say, Mozart, Rimbaud, Dylan Thomas, etc; also of the 'late bloomers' like Gauguin, who started as a stock broker and ended as a broke artist in the South Seas. As the saying goes "There is something terrible about being immortal: one must die several times while still alive."

 

[Pure]

To N, who eloquently said,

[of the submitting person]
it's to permit another experience to take hold, one that's not part of our own preferred patterns, one imposed by another person or another source.

OK, I can see that 1) to the degree a person challenges themselves-- which is sometimes minimal, sometimes great. 2) to the degree that someone countenances 'imposition' (on themselves). In an era of instant exits, and unchallenged safewords, the imposition may not be much allowed. At the other end of the spectrum from the amusement park, where one can go to another booth (and throw bean bags as opposed to taking rifle shots), I can see that joining a religious order--becoming a Nazirite or, if Christian, a Franciscan-- does shape one, even if there is a resignation [from the order] process. I see that begins to be 'authentic', in your words. Joining the marines is an even closer, perhaps, in that the imposition will be there for x many years, and one surely will get 'shaped', perhaps away from a 'preferred pattern.

So in each case them, one has to look at the 'whole thing' relationship and context and see if it's more like the amusement park or more like the marines; more capricious or more authentic. Or what.

 

[MissTaken]

The purpose of the sub is to love unconditionally, and to obey.

But, there does exist, and rather commonly, BDSM without love?

Does that mean that those submissives are not really submitting?

If nothing else is being revealed in this thread, it is certainly that the "purpose" of a submissive varies from one submissive to another and one Dominant to another. And that is as it should be, methinks. No two relationships of any kind are the same, perhaps similar, but never the same. So, D/s does and should vary from one person to another and even one relationship to another.

 

[MissTaken]

I've occasionally felt this myself...that I am being 'forced' to serve my sub, in a way, because her desire is to be spanked, flogged, etc. What I have been learning, however, is that don't have to do any of that. I don't have to tie her up if I don't want to. My mood, my desire, is what matters, not what she wants. If our desires for certain behavior match, it is wonderful, but for me, the only desire a sub should concern herself with is the desire to serve my needs.

What I like about this post is that Johnny clearly states that the role and purpose of HIS submissive is........

I also enjoy this post as it seems Johnny and I may have been cut from the same cloth.

If I am with someone who seems more concerned about the things that I enjoy than the things He enjoys, there is a bit of let down for me.

Yes, I enjoy many things that a Dominant will also enjoy, but there is a line wherein my pleasure is only in knowing that He is finding pleasure in what He is doing with or to me. Perhaps, that line comes somewhere around "I have enough perhaps the safe word? " " And, well, I don't need to use that word yet...I am okay and He is obviously enjoying Himself."

I don't mean that I would go so far over that line as to allow Him to harm me etc. But, I think many subs will take as much as they can and a bit more. I also think that many Dominants know their subs well enough to know when this is happening and are pleased with that. It is then, that service seems to be at it's peak..in my experience.

 

[MissTaken]

Just a couple aberrant opinions from a part timer:

. Wouldn't it be fair then, if we suppose you're in a relationship satisfying your expectations, to say that you please yourself and much as, and equally to, your pleasing Him?

J.

Yes, the submissive's choice is to engage with someone who enjoys the same proclivities as she or he enjoys.
A matched set, if you please?

Ideally, two interlocking pieces would complete the relationship puzzle.



However, as one grows within the relationship, their tastes and desires are likely to change with time. As with any long term relationship, hopefully, the two would grow together and their bond would be strengthened rather than fracture.

But it happens both ways.

 

[Jonnyray]

For whatever it's worth, I think the purpose of the sub is, at a higher level, the same as a dom. Both seek to please in their own way and get pleasure in return. It's a yin/yang sort of thing where finding the right balance is how the relationship grows.

 

[MissTaken]

I'm agnostic about 'subs' by nature, or born subs. Some gays say 'born gay, no choice." I'm het and maybe born that way, or it's 'a role I fit into naturally'. OK, assuming you are sub, there are a variety of masters, from the less to the more severe, the ones in love with titles and their use 'Exalted Sir', one's who have more or less culture, or sensitivity. Is it fair to say then, that your choice reflects what you expect in these dimensions? (Just as my choice of all the het partners, from wild to conventional, etc reflects my tastes)

Some in the lifestyle are "hardwired" to be that way. Does that mean they are born that way, have no choice? Perhaps, not.

However, like that "broke artist" and many others, as we grow we learn to understand ourselves and what makes us tick. At 15, 25, 35, or even 65, we are still works in progress and learning about who we are.

Sometimes, those lessons lead to difficult life changes i.e. divorce, change in occupation etc. Other times, those discoveries slip very comfortably within how we have already begun life's journey.

And for some, what I just typed is complete bullshit. They are Dominant or submissive because they enjoy it, it is fun, it is creative sexual play.

Whatever works~

 

[ownedsubgal]

Hi OSG,

to respond to Pure, my Master and i chose each other. but my purpose as a submissive is by no means limited to my Master. i am submissive with, or without a Master. my purpose as a submissive is to please and serve others, period. that's just the "role" i fit into naturally in life. not a choice.

I'm agnostic about 'subs' by nature, or born subs. Some gays say 'born gay, no choice." I'm het and maybe born that way, or it's 'a role I fit into naturally'. OK, assuming you are born sub, there are a variety of masters, from the less to the more severe, the ones in love with titles and the use 'Exalted Sir', ones who have more or less culture, or sensitivity. Is it fair to say then, that your choice reflects what you expect in these dimensions? (Just as my choice of all the het partners, from wild to conventional, etc reflects my tastes)

I think there probably are 'destinies' --as in destined to be a poet.
But two cautions; what a person feels at say 15 or 20 to be their destiny may not be, depending on their depth. Second, it ain't necessarily easy, if you read the lives of say, Mozart, Rimbaud, Dylan Thomas, etc; also of the 'late bloomers' like Gauguin, who started as a stock broker and ended as a broke artist in the South Seas. As the saying goes "There is something terrible about being immortal: one must die several times while still alive."

it's true people are always growing, learning, evolving as the years go by...but my being submissive is one of those permanents...like my skin color/race, it's not something i have any actual control over. i know many find that difficult to believe...but oh well. it's definitely not easy...i fought against being submissive for a very long time, long before i knew that submissive was the name for what i was....i hated my need to serve, my need to please others...i hated constantly being taken advantage of and abused...i hated being so completely unsatisfied in vanilla relationships, with perfectly nice men for the most part, not understanding what was wrong with me, why i was so different. but once i discovered what i was and learned about it, i saw that it was a beautiful thing, and did not have to be a burden. but i also realized that being the sort of sub i am, i needed a Master. not wanted, NEEDED, just to be safe and reasonably sane and protected in the world. i was very lucky to find a Master that desired a submissive such as myself, i think most would have run for the hills, lol. i think natural born subs, in this day and age, are very rare, and not very accepted, even in the D/s community.

 

[Pure]

osg
i think natural born subs, in this day and age, are very rare, and not very accepted, even in the D/s community.

Well, osg, you are welcome around here!

To me it makes no difference if some 'leanings' or 'orientations' etc are, in fact 'born'. It's important, as you suggested, to realize that, even in the 'born' case, there is self discovery to be done, hard lessons to be learned etc.

I think you will also agree no one is 'born for' abuse (hatred, injury, wounds...).

 

[Guest]