What makes a true submissive?

[SassyLady87]

I've acquainted myself with the world of BDSM as well as D/s relationships for years now. I identify as someone who is submissive but on many ocassions I've been told that I'm not a true submissive because I do have a strong personality and have been an independent woman for a long time now. I feel thats an ignorant way of thinking and always assume its because they arent informed or just settle for perpetuating stereotypes without researching. What do you guys think?

If this has been brought up as a thread before, I am really sorry. I'm new to the BDSM Talk forum.

 

[yossi]

If you consider yourself to be submissive, then fuck what other people have to say about your submission, except the person to whom you are submitting.

Everyone has an opinion about what true submission looks like, and it usually fits how they submit our how they like being submitted to. Honestly, if we tried to follow everyone's idea of submission, we'd go crazy before the first day was done.

 

[Primalex]

What do you guys think?

How much I will have to write till you show me your tits.


Sorry, was this the moment to be less honest? I'm socially challenged.

 

[Gotham_Central]

If you consider yourself to be submissive, then fuck what other people have to say about your submission, except the person to whom you are submitting.

Everyone has an opinion about what true submission looks like, and it usually fits how they submit our how they like being submitted to. Honestly, if we tried to follow everyone's idea of submission, we'd go crazy before the first day was done.

This! So very much this!

There is no end of people willing to tell you how you should think and act to be as <insert label> as they are; all the while telling you they don't believe in "one true way". Take everything, including this, with a grain of salt and seek what makes you and your partner happy.

 

[TheWhiteBull]

I think of people saying "true sub" or "true daddy" as the same type of people who say "the true Christianity" or "the true Islam". Nobody has a monopoly on ideas/definitions.

 

[Gotham_Central]

I think of people saying "true sub" or "true daddy" as the same type of people who say "the true Christianity" or "the true Islam". Nobody has a monopoly on ideas/definitions.

Where is that LIKE button...

 

[Iamsubmissive]

If someone has a good answer I'd like to know...to make sure I'm doing it right. LOL. My best answer would be as long as you're honest, and not pretending to be something you're not, then you dont need to worry about qualifying as a 'true' or 'real' sub. Anyone judging you based on arbitrary rules or definitions is someone who doesn't understand the true meaning themselves.

 

[SissySalina]

Submissive

I've acquainted myself with the world of BDSM as well as D/s relationships for years now. I identify as someone who is submissive but on many ocassions I've been told that I'm not a true submissive because I do have a strong personality and have been an independent woman for a long time now. I feel thats an ignorant way of thinking and always assume its because they arent informed or just settle for perpetuating stereotypes without researching. What do you guys think?

If this has been brought up as a thread before, I am really sorry. I'm new to the BDSM Talk forum.

The one expert defines Submissive as: "submitting to others: yielding" dare to argue with Webster?
So if you are truly submitting to others then you are a true submissive.

How you identify is how you feel, the key is the you, life experiences determine how we perceive things including ourselves.
Also opinions are like holes, some folks use theirs more than others and no two are exactly alike, exception to rule is identical twins.

The previous has been a submissive sissy presentation and opinion.

 

[AlbertShufflebottom]

Being a true submissive is when you really don't like the idea of what you are about to do but you are going to do it anyway because you trust your partner.

 

[KimGordon67]

I've acquainted myself with the world of BDSM as well as D/s relationships for years now. I identify as someone who is submissive but on many ocassions I've been told that I'm not a true submissive because I do have a strong personality and have been an independent woman for a long time now. I feel thats an ignorant way of thinking and always assume its because they arent informed or just settle for perpetuating stereotypes without researching. What do you guys think?

If this has been brought up as a thread before, I am really sorry. I'm new to the BDSM Talk forum.

Who on earth would even say that?

 

[KimGordon67]

Being a true submissive is when you really don't like the idea of what you are about to do but you are going to do it anyway because you trust your partner.

I'm gonna go with 'no' for this one ... unless you positing it as your definition of 'submissive', rather than some universal truth.

 

[darklingdarling]

There is no such thing as a 'true' submissive; there is no 'one twue way' to go about it. Everyone has a different flavour of submission, and on the flip side, what a submissive individual is to them. Go with what feels right for -you-.

 

[Primalex]

If submission is whatever you want it to be, how can it be different from domination then?

 

[KimGordon67]

If submission is whatever you want it to be, how can it be different from domination then?

I've scrolled back through this and can't find one post where anyone says 'submission is whatever you want it to be'. What people have said is that there's no 'true' way to be submissive. It's like saying there's a hundred different kinds of roses - is one of them the 'true' rose? (I was going to try to work in some 'rose by any other name' analogy here, but my brain is too fried. I should have just stuck with ice cream - it's an analogy that always serves me well, but now I can't be arsed going back and rewriting it. Hopefully there isn't one fucking true rose out there from which all other roses are descended and of which they are only pale imitations.)
Obviously for some to be recognised as 'submission' by other people - even just the two/however many people involved in the act - there has to be some common aspects, just like roses have common aspects. But you could argue the same about any word - word only have meaning because we've all agreed they mean a certain thing. So 'submissive' has to have some core elements, otherwise the words itself would be meaningless. But, the argument is, that some of the specifics of the meaning is created within the interaction between the two people.

I really want to bring in some Judith Butler talking about the performative aspect of identity here ... but see above about fried brain.

 

[Blue]

If submission is whatever you want it to be, how can it be different from domination then?

It's only regarding the variation in one demograhpic.

 

[Primalex]

It's like saying there's a hundred different kinds of roses - is one of them the 'true' rose?

Your premise is that the plant is indeed a rose.

This is not the case though.
The situation is a plant that states:"I see myself as a rose, but other plants tell me I'm not a rose! What do you guys think?"

All this:"Awwe, poor plant, don't listen to those other plants, of course you are a rose!" is just political correctness bullshit. There is only one reasonable reaction and that is the question:"Well, plant, what makes you believe that you are a rose?"

Hopefully there isn't one fucking true rose out there from which all other roses are descended and of which they are only pale imitations.

If this is not the case, then a powerful entity decided to create variations of roses at the very same time. Just saying.

 

[quicky1]

I've acquainted myself with the world of BDSM as well as D/s relationships for years now. I identify as someone who is submissive but on many ocassions I've been told that I'm not a true submissive because I do have a strong personality and have been an independent woman for a long time now. I feel thats an ignorant way of thinking and always assume its because they arent informed or just settle for perpetuating stereotypes without researching. What do you guys think?

If this has been brought up as a thread before, I am really sorry. I'm new to the BDSM Talk forum.

Quoting: not a true submissive because I do have a strong personality and have been an independent woman.....

In my view, not D/S, just B/S. The D/S relation is essentially sexual, about giving up control of one's body, needing to be used. Many subs have exactly the qualities you mention, strong personality, independent.

 

[MeekMe]

This is funny. I took a sprout from a pot at my friends house and I'm currently hoping it's a rose. I'll be disappointed if it turns out I took a weed, put it in a pot and cared for it.

 

[Blue]

Your premise is that the plant is indeed a rose.

This is not the case though.
The situation is a plant that states:"I see myself as a rose, but other plants tell me I'm not a rose! What do you guys think?"

All this:"Awwe, poor plant, don't listen to those other plants, of course you are a rose!" is just political correctness bullshit. There is only one reasonable reaction and that is the question:"Well, plant, what makes you believe that you are a rose?"

She says she's acquainted with BDSM and is submissive. Sure, if we expand on what she means by that she might not have any traits that anybody here would consider uniquely submissive. In that case then yeah, I guess it sucks that she's being fed misinformation by overly-inclusive personalities here.

I just don't see why we have to have a sematical debate to establish that she fits an agreeable description of a submissive (Which is what it sounds like you're getting at to me?) before answering her question when this doesn't really seem like such a pressing issue that you can't accept some reasonable presuppositions for the sake of discussion.

 

[yossi]

Your premise is that the plant is indeed a rose.

This is not the case though.
The situation is a plant that states:"I see myself as a rose, but other plants tell me I'm not a rose! What do you guys think?"

All this:"Awwe, poor plant, don't listen to those other plants, of course you are a rose!" is just political correctness bullshit. There is only one reasonable reaction and that is the question:"Well, plant, what makes you believe that you are a rose?"

I identify as someone who is submissive but on many ocassions I've been told that I'm not a true submissive because I do have a strong personality and have been an independent woman for a long time now. I feel thats an ignorant way of thinking and always assume its because they arent informed or just settle for perpetuating stereotypes without researching. What do you guys think?

I know many submissives who have both a strong personality and have been independent for long amounts of time. I don't see those as reasons to tell someone they aren't a true submissive. But, yes, more information would be helpful in this case.

This is just my mind wandering and doesn't pertain to anyone in particular:
The term "true submissive" is weird to me, like when people say "real woman/man." Yes, there's a difference between D/s and just enjoying kinky sex, but there's no solid set of criteria to prove yourself to people who don't believe you. I just take people at their word, because, unless I'm involved with them, it doesn't matter what I think of their submission or dominance.

 

[Farawyn]

I know many submissives who have both a strong personality and have been independent for long amounts of time. I don't see those as reasons to tell someone they aren't a true submissive. But, yes, more information would be helpful in this case.

This is just my mind wandering and doesn't pertain to anyone in particular:
The term "true submissive" is weird to me, like when people say "real woman/man." Yes, there's a difference between D/s and just enjoying kinky sex, but there's no solid set of criteria to prove yourself to people who don't believe you. I just take people at their word, because, unless I'm involved with them, it doesn't matter what I think of their submission or dominance.

This.

 

[_Necrosomantic_]

The mistake is in assuming there is a definitive answer to that question at all, as everyone else has said.

Individual preferences and interpretations? Yes. Parallels that can be drawn between multiple types of relationships/individuals that share similar or the same themes? Sure. But a concrete/umbrella definition you must fit under to be " allowed " by others to define yourself as anything? Pants on head retarded. I've seen it a LOT, particularly when people are new and have questions. You are grilled and forced to go through someone else's litmus test consisting of their own insipid ideas about how you should be, and when you're not or you don't agree, well then you must be a liar. You don't belong here. On your bike.

Just because you don't fit someone else's ideal, doesn't mean a god damn thing other than. You're half right about the reasons why, but you cut far too much slack by saying they are simply ill informed or perpetuating stereotypes. Let's be honest, any Pywhatthefuckever that would pounce on someone new and start telling them what they are, do so with full knowledge and with some degree of maliciousness. This is a sure sign of insecurity, a lack of any real experience, over inflated ego, and a lousy attempt at manipulating someone else's naïveté. Most see through it, some don't, the latter break my heart. If someone starts trying to slap labels on you, make demands, make you feel bad or wrong for being yourself, or sound like they're reciting scripted lines/regurgitating things they've actually only read about after knowing you for a whopping five minutes, you should tell them to have a coke and a smile. Don't let yourself be deluded into believing for a second that you owe anyone anything they don't earn because
" Sir ".

As for the idea that strong, independent women can't be submissive or feel the need to introduce themselves as such, otherwise they feel they will be seen as weak or " less " for identifying as submissive ( which I believe there are threads about somewhere around here ), I'll just go ahead and say that opinion is utter horseshit and anyone who tries to convince you of either, isn't fit to tie up anything more complicated than shoe laces... Which they'd probably also manage to fuck up and do lasting damage to.

 

[Nezhul]

A true submissive is the one who wants to submit and wants to be identified as such. It's not about the degree of commitment at all - you may play as much or as little as you desire and still be a submissive. If you have a kinky sex once a month where you play a sub - then you are a submissive (or a switch, if you occasionally play the other role).

There's no such thing as "true" submissive. There are no rules or guidelines that you should follow - mainly because each D&S relationship is unique and is a blend of certain kinks and fetishes.

 

[KarenLoves]

I think a submissive is one who yields their ego to another person's control. The reasons for it can be very varied, as can be the personality of the one entering that state In general I think the tendencies toward submissiveness seep out into other parts of life other than sexual, but that just means there is a range of what it means to be submissive.

 

[KimGordon67]

Your premise is that the plant is indeed a rose.

This is not the case though.
The situation is a plant that states:"I see myself as a rose, but other plants tell me I'm not a rose! What do you guys think?"

All this:"Awwe, poor plant, don't listen to those other plants, of course you are a rose!" is just political correctness bullshit. There is only one reasonable reaction and that is the question:"Well, plant, what makes you believe that you are a rose?"

Well, that's your interpretation of the conversation. Mine is more like 'Hey, other plants, I'm pretty sure I'm a rose, based on my understanding of what roses are, and quite a few rose lovers have recognised me as such, but then some other people (or do I mean plants) say I'm not because I don't have thorns. What do you reckon - are thorns a necessary condition for rose-ness?'