When is a sub not a sub?

Marquis

Jack Dawkins
Joined
Jul 9, 2002
Posts
10,462
In case you haven't picked up on it by now, I'm that guy who gets off on creating controversy over minor issues.

Controversy, not conflict.

Not that I mind a little conflict if it comes, but my goal is never to seek conflict.

With that said, I have a question based on a young lady I happen to know quite well.

This young lady happens to be the darling of one of the finest Masters and sensual artists I know. She gets flogged, whipped, tied up, waxed (not the bikini kind), cupped, trained and basically played with in every way possible.

She gets fucked too, but only by her boyfriend who is another male entirely, who she is not all that submissive with. Basically, her duty to the Master of which I spoke is to enjoy the countless pleasures and orgasms he enjoys bestowing upon her.

Now, posturing aside, who is really serving who here?

This is a girl who does not like to give head, does not like anal and considers almost any form of pleasing her primary partner to be honorary or punishment.

Now I'd like to bring in my patented:

"COME ON!"

Don't get me wrong, she's a great friend of mine and I love her to death, but I hear her talking about being a sub and I can't help but think something is wrong with this picture.

So my question to you is, when is a sub not a sub?

Let me provide a few sample answers which shall be, for purposes of this discussion, be considered, dry, banal, mundane and otherwise unnecessary.

1. It's a free world and we love everyone and we should accept everyone and if she says she's a sub it's her business, don't judge, don't criticize, don't hate.

1a. To which my rebuttal is as such; YOU UNORIGINAL BITCH/BASTARD! I HAVE HEARD THIS SHIT SO MANY TIMES I AM FORCED TO WRITE IN CAPS. For once, can we pretend like we're all having a nice campfire chat, or perhaps a midnight sleepover talk instead of speaking to our graduating class?

2. I'm a mean, harsh, selfish Dom, who couldn't possibly comprehend that subs deserve to be played with like little bunny rabbits and never expected to put out a damn thing.

2b. Guilty as charged.
 
I am not entirely sure I even understand the question.

However, perhaps you need to ask her master if she is sub enough or not. Perhaps there are dynamics in the relationship you are not aware of.
 
These labels are pretty much subject to change according to each partner or lack thereof. When is a sub not a sub? When they're not.
 
indianPilot said:
I am not entirely sure I even understand the question.

Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough, I am Manic you know.

Basically, at what point does a sub stop being a sub, by your personal standards? I think we all have our little "subbiness" meter with which we gauge people, or at least our partners, at what degree of sub-subbiness does a sub preclude submission?

indianPilot said:
However, perhaps you need to ask her master if she is sub enough or not.

This is exactly the kind of cop-out answer I was trying to avoid, but I'll grant you a free conflict pass because you already stated you didn't understand the question.

indianPilot said:
Perhaps there are dynamics in the relationship you are not aware of.

Oh, I know much more than I'm saying here, but I've boiled it down to it's bare essentials.
 
Recidiva said:
These labels are pretty much subject to change according to each partner or lack thereof. When is a sub not a sub? When they're not.

BRILLIANT!!


:rolleyes:
 
I think I get the gist of what you're asking. Is it along the lines of: when does a sub stop paying servitude for their Master's benefit and continue on more for hers? It's something I've come across time and again in the lifestyle.

Who is really in charge when the sub desires pain/punishment? After all they can choose to be bad if they want, knowing that there will be a reaction to this behaviour. I know I've seen one or two cases of a sub manipulating the Dom/Domme into punishing them by going out of their way to create frustration. Haven't had it occur to myself, but I do make it clear to my playthings that I do not tolerate intentional mistakes.

I think that may answer....something at least. :cool:
 
Kajira Callista said:
a sub is not a sub when it is a hoagie or a hero?

did i get it right? did i? huh? Huh?

:p

Or in New England, where it's a grinder.
 
O.k. tell me if I read this wrong but I'm seeing is that she has a Master who beats on/plays with her and a lover that she actually has sex with yes?

Perhaps she's using the term sub when what she means is masochist.

As for whose serving whom it could be fairly mutual, she serves his need to express his sadism giving him a willing participant in his play and he serves her need for such play.

But that's just the way I read it. ~shrugs~
 
I like caela's answer here not just because she's cute, but because she makes sense.

When I look at the two different relationships, I have no porblem with the Master doing as he pleases with her and her enjoying that and submitting to him. I also don't have a problem with the dynamic she carries on with her boyfriend as i see that as at least 50% her choice in the dynamic of that relationship.

If I understand your question directly, I take it you are raising an eyebrow at this lady claiming to be a submissive, while knowing she is in two relationships, and submits only in one.

My answer to this is simply that I believe it is the right for a person to choose "to whom" they are willing to give their submission to. A submissive is not or shouldn't be expected to be submissive to everyone or anyone.

I don't think you can say being a submissive is in no way self serving. The fact that a person derives happiness from submitting should be a clear enough statement to that fact.

However I will throw you a curve-ball as only can expected from me. Have you ever considered that some people may only have a submissive fetish or a dominant fetish? I have been pondering the reality of whether this can be true or not myself lately. Perhaps she doesn't have a submissive "nature" I dunno, but since when did a submissive nature arrive from a definition of whether or not she takes it in the ass?

just sayin'
 
Last edited:
You can always ask who serves whom in any D/s relationship.
If somone needs to feel pain, and the other needs to inflict pain, and they get together, does the masochistic one serve the sadistic one to satisfy their needs? Or does the sadistic one serve the masochistic one to satisfy their needs?
If someone does not like to decide anything, and another one like to decides a lot, and they get together, does the first one serve the second one as someone to control, to decide for? Or does the second one serve the first one to get on with whatever, to not having to do what they don't like to do?

Does submitting mean to do what the other wants, even if you do not want to do so? From time to time, certainly. Always, no, or why would you stay in the relationship? If that were the case there should be no problem for a sub being with a non-dominant partner, because putting the other's desires above one's own would mean making them happy in a vanilla way. Doesn't work often enough.

Something someone considers normal and necessary play can be off limits for someone else, without making them less submissive.
 
So far I think everyone's answers have been RIGHT ON.

Here's an answer you might feel is a little bit more satisfying though, Marquis.

I personally consider a "Submissive" as a person who gets off on pleasing their partner by serving them, even if it doesn't give them any direct pleasure. Going down on a guy, for instance, doesn't get me off directly - it's not linked to my clit, it doesn't give me direct physical pleasure. But I do get off on the fact that I'm doing it for him, that his hand is in my hair directing me while I do it, that it's what he wants me to do... I know that by those standards we might say any amount of lovers are submissive, because a lot of people do things for their lovers that don't get them off directly, but that's how I think of it.

Then, I'd consider a bottom a person who gets off on having the other person take all the control. For instance, their negotiations don't involve being punished in the true sense of the word if they misbehave. They might receive pain, if that's what they're in to, or restraint, if that's what they like, but they're not going to be given the kind of punishment that leaves them truly contrite.

I'd consider a masochist a person that doesn't necessarily submit, and doesn't necessarily like to be on the bottom (but can be the person in either scenario) but who enjoys getting a bit of that lovely pain we were talking about now and again ;) They don't necessarily want to serve to get off... they want to be hurt to get off. They enjoy being flogged, cropped, whipped, spanked, clamped, waxed, etc.

To me, a submissive stops being a "submissive" when they're not involved in D/s to serve. They're in it *specifically* to get off. If they're following the rules not because the rules are in place and what the Dom desires, but because the rules are directly paralleled to their own desires and fantasies.

So, like I said, I totally agree with everyone else. My first response was going to be "A sub stops being a sub when they stop defining themselves as a sub." And that's still my answer. But while I read those responses, I realized that I have hypocritical thoughts in my head, and preformed opinions. Just like I have prejudices when I first meet a preppy blonde and think they're going to be a dumbshit. It's not usually true, but it's the first thing that pops into my mind.
 
It's a free world and we love everyone and we should accept everyone and if she says she's a sub it's her business, don't judge, don't criticize, don't hate.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Seriously, she doesn't sound very submissive to me, but it's not really anyone's business than her and her master's. *shrugs* If theyr'e happy with the relationship, then it works fine.
 
I guess ultimately it depends on what HER definition of sub is, not your definition. Your description makes it sound like there is no "submitting" going on. She sounds like a masochistic bottom. But who am I to judge that? I guess it would depend on her definition. If it's working for her and her Master, then what difference does it make to you whether she's truly a sub or just a bottom?

That said, I think that although there are what I consider to be very specific behaviors that are natural to submissives, with the very vague and broad definitions of any BDSM terms, I guess we could debate the issue ad nauseum and still never come to any kind of agreement on what makes a sub a sub. Or a dom a dom. Like people said to me when I was questioning a previous relationship, maybe she's just not YOUR kind of sub.

I know that puts me in the all caps response section, but you asked for it. :)
 
All of these stinking labels! There is such a wide scale of different kinks out there, 3/4ths of them won't fit into one of the specific stated labels. And, I'm sure this girl is probably a very good example of one of those 3/4ths.

I received a message from a "so called" slave on collarme. She said she didn't think I was what she was looking for because my message and my profile looked to her like I was a Dom...and she was looking for a Master.

OK, I'm sure it was just a cop out message where she used that instead of saying "thanks but no thanks" but it still makes you think...what makes a Dom a Dom and what makes a Master a Master?

Depending on the woman I'm with, I will have different ideas enter my mind. Some women make me hornier than others and some women seem to be just looking to get certain types of punishment from me...just because. :D

I could very well meet someone, start a 24/7 relationship with her and be a Master. I'm also sure there is a woman out there that I could maybe sub to.

I say that, but at this writing, I've not met that woman. But, because of what I've seen in other people's relationships, I'm not going to say it won't ever happen. It all boils down to how we relate with that other person.

Just like this woman...it depends on the chemistry between the two people involved. You might go into a relationship thinking one way, but it's possible your views could change, depending on how you relate with your specific partner.

So, she might enjoy subbing to this one guy, but not to her boyfriend. So, the answer to the question "When is a sub not a sub?" When she's with someone that doesn't give off that special chemistry she needs in order to sink into sub mode.

Haven't you heard of aromatherapy?
 
RJMasters said:
I like caela's answer here not just because she's cute, but because she makes sense.

When I look at the two different relationships, I have no porblem with the Master doing as he pleases with her and her enjoying that and submitting to him. I also don't have a problem with the dynamic she carries on with her boyfriend as i see that as at least 50% her choice in the dynamic of that relationship.

If I understand your question directly, I take it you are raising an eyebrow at this lady claiming to be a submissive, while knowing she is in two relationships, and submits only in one.

My answer to this is simply that I believe it is the right for a person to choose "to whom" they are willing to give their submission to. A submissive is not or shouldn't be expected to be submissive to everyone or anyone.

I don't think you can say being a submissive is in no way self serving. The fact that a person derives happiness from submitting should be a clear enough statement to that fact.

However I will throw you a curve-ball as only can expected from me. Have you ever considered that some people may only have a submissive fetish or a dominant fetish? I have been pondering the reality of whether this can be true or not myself lately. Perhaps she doesn't have a submissive "nature" I dunno, but since when did a submissive nature arrive from a definition of whether or not she takes it in the ass?

just sayin'

Very interesting concept Mr Masters ..........
 
Marquis said:
Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough, I am Manic you know.

Basically, at what point does a sub stop being a sub, by your personal standards? I think we all

When the sub begins to seek control and power over the Dom/me, the sub is no longer a sub. I once had a sub who used guilt and whingeing to try to emotionally manipulate me because he was jealous of my interest, even intellectual interest, in others. I punished him for this jealousy and he left me. He quickly came to terms with the fact that he was a Dom and not a sub. Since then, he's found successful intimacy with two subs. I knew he wasn't really a submissive, though, when he tried to have power and control (even indirectly) over me.

I know I suck at capping. It's the grammarian in me. =D
 
Recidiva said:
Or in New England, where it's a grinder.
Isn't a grinder when they grind the insides of the bun out from the end with a drill of sorts and then shove the cheese, meat, pasta (yes, I pasta) and sauce into the hole...plugging it up so it doesn't leak out?

Meatball grinders and cheese grinders and even lasagna grinders...great stuff.

So, I don't really consider a grinder part of the sub family. They are much higher on the food chain...and price scale, too.
 
label soup

i am already confused. this thread is not helping :(
 
maybe she's a Gemini

It sounds like she has mastered the fine art of compartmentalizing.
 
Not all Dom's are the same. Maybe her Dom enjoys giving her pleasure, and it brings him pleasure. To you she might seem pampered or spoild. But some Dom's have different fetishes then others. If your willing to take pain, then you get pleasure and thats what seems to be happening here. If he's not complaining and what he's doing is pleasing him then it shouldn't matter. More then likely she discussed all of this with him before she submitted to him. And if he wanted something more extreme he probably would have moved on and found another sub by now.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top