Why I despise subs

[cocktail42]

I already have that..
what if I had been a bad little girl. what then?

Anything you want.

 

[Pixie Mischief]

Anything you want.

so it doesnt matter if I'm good or bad?

 

[cocktail42]

Re: Dispising Subs...

I have no problem with you despising certain people, but when you despise a group of people...isn't that the same as racism or sexism? Go ahead and despise the subs that you had bad experiences with, but don't push us all into the same group and say "I hate you all" - next you'll be lynching us or burning down our homes.

I don't think so, I am afraid of fires. There is a major difference between rejecting people who have chosen to act in a certain way and being prejudiced against people who have certain characteristics. To be wary off or dislike people because of their skin color or sex is most certainly irrational and harmful prejudice.
To relate an experience, actually several experience, to a group of people who have chosen to act in a certain way (and everyone here has assured me that they have 'chosen' their lifestyle) than, at least, you must wonder if the negative behavior that has been observed relates to a significant portion of that group.
Once again though, I have sought to clarify my position - I am relating only to a 'sub' like personality (which may as yet have to be redefined) that reacts in a very negative manner when denied her/his unspoken desire.

 

[cocktail42]

so it doesnt matter if I'm good or bad?

Of course it does, you get better stuff when you are bad.

 

[Pixie Mischief]

Of course it does, you get better stuff when you are bad.

LMAO!!!! wicked.
bf kinda sent me to my corner to think things over once

*yawns* but no me a good girl. and a tired one at that

 

[Ms_Lilith]

cocktail, in your response to me, the situation you described does not, I believe, fall under the category of D/s. Why? Because in the situation you described, the 'submissive' was not freely submitting, and the 'Dominant' had not made it known that D/s was the 'game' of the day. A true D/s relationship is one in which both partners enter it with their eyes wide open, and they remain with eyes wide open throughout the entire thing. Communication is the key...

the motto of the BDSM lifestyle is 'Safe, Sane, Consentual'. The situation you described doesn't fit that motto, or my definition of what a true BDSM relationship is, and therefore I don't believe it is one.

Other people in the lifestyle might disagree with me, but generally, if there is no trust, no communication, no understanding between partners of what the roles are to be, then it is not a D/s relationship. It cannot function as one, because both partners are not willingly and knowingly participating.

*edited to add* It works the other way as well... if a submissive is giving of themselves, and aching to be dominated, but there is no understanding that the 'dom' in the relationship must dominate, then it is not a D/s relationship, either. There must be communication and understanding. If the submissive does not get the domination that they crave from a person who might not have been aware they were the dominant, then I can hardly classify that as BDSM.

If, however, there was communication and an understanding that the Dom was to Dom, and the sub was to sub, and the sub did not receive the kind of attention that he/she required, I would see it as a point of discussion between the two partners. If they decided that they were incompatible with what they were willing to give and receive, then the relationship should not continue.

 

[Pixie Mischief]

honestly thought thats important in ALL relationships. Trust honesty and communication
ALL important in any couple relationships.

*yawns and gets ready to head off to bed*

 

[cocktail42]

I don't understand why you're taking your one experience with a "sub" and making a generalization that all subs are that way.

Maybe I shouldn't and that is why I started the thread. Threads are discussions aren't they.
I think I am pretty well convinced by the many posting on here that calling her a sub was probably incorrect. I would have to find a psychiatric term which, at this point, eludes me.
I have redefined my position, to a great extent, with relationships were one partner is seeking humiliation without communicating that desire in a direct manner. I am particularly concerned with the subsequent reaction when that desire is not met.
Very specific a relationship but, I still hold, not all that uncommon in the general population. It is somewhat explained by Jean Paul Sartre in his book "Being and Nothingness."
I am surprised that someone with a psychiatric background hasn't been heard from yet. I am sure that there must be some readers of this thread out there who have that kind of training.

 

[cocktail42]

I have a question.. why isn't this post in the BDSM board?



maybe afraid of all the powerful responses you might have received?

Because I never go there and it didn't even occur to me. I haven't started too many threads (I think this may be my second or third) and I always use the General Board.

Sorry, I am not all that afraid. However, I am glad I didn't I have enough problems just answering the responses on here. I would have been deluged on there I presume. Besides, it's supposed to be an open discussion not a masochistic need on my part to have to defend myself against a group of firm believers.

 

[cocktail42]

LMAO!!!! wicked.
bf kinda sent me to my corner to think things over once

*yawns* but no me a good girl. and a tired one at that

Go to bed with sweet 's

 

[cocktail42]

cocktail, in your response to me, the situation you described does not, I believe, fall under the category of D/s. Why? Because in the situation you described, the 'submissive' was not freely submitting, and the 'Dominant' had not made it known that D/s was the 'game' of the day. A true D/s relationship is one in which both partners enter it with their eyes wide open, and they remain with eyes wide open throughout the entire thing. Communication is the key...

the motto of the BDSM lifestyle is 'Safe, Sane, Consentual'. The situation you described doesn't fit that motto, or my definition of what a true BDSM relationship is, and therefore I don't believe it is one.

Other people in the lifestyle might disagree with me, but generally, if there is no trust, no communication, no understanding between partners of what the roles are to be, then it is not a D/s relationship. It cannot function as one, because both partners are not willingly and knowingly participating.

*edited to add* It works the other way as well... if a submissive is giving of themselves, and aching to be dominated, but there is no understanding that the 'dom' in the relationship must dominate, then it is not a D/s relationship, either. There must be communication and understanding. If the submissive does not get the domination that they crave from a person who might not have been aware they were the dominant, then I can hardly classify that as BDSM.

If, however, there was communication and an understanding that the Dom was to Dom, and the sub was to sub, and the sub did not receive the kind of attention that he/she required, I would see it as a point of discussion between the two partners. If they decided that they were incompatible with what they were willing to give and receive, then the relationship should not continue.

I am sorry for the short response to a very well thought out answer - I fully agree with you.
My question is about the consequences and behavior that occur when there is a misalignment between the two people. I will hold that there are many relationships, not codified in a D/s manner by either party, which suffer from the lack of communication, honesty and frustrated desires of one of the members of that relationship.
At this point I am no longer certain where I am heading with this thread. I think we have established that it does not really concern a paradigmatic D/s relationship. That the behavior I am following may be clinical in nature and cannot be treated or reacted to (so to speak) on the ground.
It wasn't that short a response after all.

 

[just pet]

Having read all of the posts, some important issues came up.

1. A misunderstanding of D/s
2. A misunderstandingof BDSM
3. A misunderstanding of the connection between D/s and BDSM
4. Role play vs r/l
5. How relationships work
6. How to form one's questions in an understandable and non-threatening form

None of these can be handled in a short discussion. That is not my intent. There are no definitive answers. No enlightenment is offered here. But for those with the next 20 minutes free, here is my perspective as a natural submissive, even to being in professions of service. As I write all this, so many issues are touched on. So bear with me, or skip it all and consider this an early morning rant.

Unfortunately, relationships occur between two (or more... another discussion) people. Here presents immediate conflict. We all have different values, interests, prolivities, limits and boundaries. We seek "two hearts beating as one" and get "he never puts the toilet seat down".

We operate from a base composed primarily from fear. Afraid of what people will say, or do, or Divine punishment, or "does my ass look big in that position". We have preconceived ideas about what a successful relationship is and the role we play in it.

The 1950s presented a defined scenario, where the man went to work, supported his wife and children, and she maintained the home. No judgement presented here. The 60s and 70s presented new and varied roles, societally accepted. The pendulum swung to bra burning, even man-hating at one end to Phyllis Schafly's The Total Woman, greeting your man at the door in just an apron made of cellophane, at the other.

Domestic abuse finally came out from under the rug. In the early 1970s, it was never considered "rape" if it occurred in a marriage setting. I know this one personally.

Now we have the freedom to explore who we really are. This forum allows many to discuss issues they would never discuss in "real life". I have heard of many people whose lives have changed from being able to discuss as freely as we do here, all manner of issues.

As individual as we all are, is as varied as what we want in a relationship, is as varied as our emotional and mental health.

What does all this drivel mean? That there are no set rules. Our roles as male or female in any relationship are muddied with choice. I am a very strong and independent woman. I run my own business. I am very busy. I am in control of my life and my choices. I hate standing in front of my closet trying to decide what to wear. It bores me. I love my man choosing what I wear, knowing he will make me look great. I love someone knowing me so well, that he can order for me in a restaurant, and I can skip that indecisive personal torture of a big menu. It frees my mind for more important things. Can I do these myself? Of course, and usually do, but it is a preference.

Do I want to be bullied? no
Do I want to be dominated? no
But...
I love a man who is self secure, who communicates, and is willing to explore the depths of his experience with a woman who is willing to trust so deeply, that his true strength matures. Give me an Alpha Male any day. He will appreciate the truly strong (not aggressive, or passive aggressive) woman.

What are we most afraid of? We fear exposure most: that we are not really strong, or really smart, or really sexy, or always right. We always want to look good. This wreaks havoc with relationships.
How many times have you butted heads with your S.O. and neither backed down out of pride? Many relationships fail due to power struggles and lack of communication. In any democracy, there is still a leader, who has the final say. But hopefully, there has been much discussion, and advisement before that final decision is made. D/s at its best offers this.

In being a sub, I truly exercise my right of choice. No one can coerce me into anything. I am truly empowered. Most Dom(mes) will tell you that the real power is with the sub. It has been stated very well here. The "down on your knees, bitch" self-proclaimed "master" is usually a very insecure man who has to demand someone please him. Otherwise it would not be done willingly.

Cocktail (interesting name...) brings up a very common experience, and brings to light bigger issues. His approach may have been misdirected at first, but his questions and concerns are very valid. How many women (and men) have been conditioned to feel they are worthless and unworthy of love? Let's not confuse mental illness, or even just lack of self-worth, with loving more intense stimulation, or seeking to erase limitations.

 

[cocktail42]

I'm sorry, I'm lost... where exactly were you talking about me in private? It wasn't to me, as I don't have any PM's at all. Nice.

Sorry, I was unclear. I stated it to someone else. I thought it became worthwile to state my opinion to you. You have done nothing but attack me since I started the thread. Did you even read some of the responses by myself and others. I think some good points and explanations were made. Of course a great deal of it is opinion - as Pixie pointed out we all have one.


Me? I prefer being sub with someone who knows what to do with it. In my marriage, we test around it a bit, but it's not a role my husband is comfortable taking over (the Dom, that is), so I don't force him.

You keep saying you weren't trying to start an argument, but if you TRULY were not trying, the title of this thread would have been passive, not aggressive.


YOu have to start a discussion somewhere, sometimes I can be too forceful. If you read any of my subsequent comments you may have noted that I redefined my position.

Keep going, you really aren't bothering me, but you still really haven't explained yourself accuretly without making it sound like you know all about it. IE: You state 1 experiance, you state that you are not trying to upset anyone, or start anything, you state that every single sub out there (cause, I'm certain, Bruce Almighty, that you know us all personally) has some sort of want to be humiliated, and put through pain.


You are making generalized statements that target a large group. Saying that all subs like to be demeaned, and have no self respect is like saying all black people like rap music, and shop lift everything they own.


I have already addressed the racial analogy several times. People who choose to live or act in a certain manner are not the same as people who have specific characteristics. When you choose to act in a certain way it is fair to ask why and what are the consequences. If you are of a certain race, gender or blue eyed it is unfair to accuse you or praise you for the actions of others who have your characteristic. If you choose to act in a certain way it can be fair to assume that you share characteristics with the group you have chosen to affiliate yourself. I will grant you there may be many sub-groupings (pun unintended) which show distinct differences but must in some major way still comply with the overall definition of that group.


It's just not like that, and your statements are still generalizing.

It doesn't piss me off that you have an oppinion, by the way. What pisses me off, is that you take 1 experiance, and claim to know the entire bunch.

] I have never made that claim. I made a claim that I wanted to explore a situation and find some answers.



You would have gotten a much better response from the entire thread had you not attacked each and every individule in a D/s relationship.

And yes, by stating what you did bluntly about subs, and more quietly about Dom/me's, you did attack the entire group.

I did so by making too sweeping a statement out of ignorance. Some calmer voices than yours have convinced me that I was much too general. I apologize to you and others who I have offended but it was not out of meanness that I made the original statement. I grant you it was forceful.

Having an oppinion is one thing, trying to convert people, and calling those who are in a relationship stupid and childish is another.

i'd stick around and chat, but I highly doubt you will ever see the difference between what you did, and stating an opinion.

I very much understand that I was stating an opinion open to discussion - why else would I start a thread? I don't believe I used the word stupid or even inferred it because I don't think it applies. I did use the word childish in terms of the paraphernalia that some chose to use to perform their sexual preference - that was definitely an opinion on my part.

Here, I'll state one: I think you are a jack ass for the way you talk, and the way you don't try to listen, but would rather to dog the entire D/s community without knowing any of us.

Thank you for your opinion. I would like you to note that at no time did I abuse anyone here by calling them names. For the most part the main person who has resorted to personal abuse has been you. Are you that threatened that you can't stand a dissenting opinion? YOu like what you do and who you are - no problem. I was simply trying to get an understanding of what someone else does. I agree my opening statement could have been worded better but it wouldn't be the first time on Literotica that someone has made a strong declarative opening on their thread. Get over it and listen to what was said. Even I, bullheaded as I am , have altered my thoughts and position. I thank you all for helping me

P.S. You still look good enough to eat in those panties.

 

[Ms_Lilith]

Pet, you never cease to amaze me.

Thank you for your response, as it pointed out some of my own mistakes in my previous answers, and I thank you for that.

It makes me happy that you are so giving of your time to have answered so well and in such detail.. and you have truly given a gem.

Thank you.

 

[just pet]

Pet, you never cease to amaze me.

Thank you for your response, as it pointed out some of my own mistakes in my previous answers, and I thank you for that.

It makes me happy that you are so giving of your time to have answered so well and in such detail.. and you have truly given a gem.

Thank you.

Thank you, Princess
I was afraid I had killed the thread with boredom

 

[bknight2602]

Through a recent serious experience and some not so serious past experiences it has come to my attentions why subs should be wiped off this earth. A sub is someone who wants to be controlled and debased, not loved, not liked, not seen as a human. Anything else is seen as weakness by the sub. Often subs appear to be, and are, intelligent, humane, and emotionally warm people. In fact they are devoid of the ability to love and care because they cannot love or care for themselves.
If you will not dominate and abuse a sub they will turn against you. With more ferocity than any a sadistic master could muster they will try to rip your throat out, humiliate you and dehumanize you because of their lack of satisfaction of being treated in a normal or kind manner. I see them as the Undead in the "Night of the Living Dead."
I am verklemt, discuss amongst yourself.

While I do not fully understand D/S relationships, I don't condemn them either. We all have different aspects of the sexual experiences that turns us on and give pleasure.

 

[cocktail42]

Having read all of the posts, some important issues came up.

1. A misunderstanding of D/s
2. A misunderstandingof BDSM
3. A misunderstanding of the connection between D/s and BDSM
4. Role play vs r/l
5. How relationships work
6. How to form one's questions in an understandable and non-threatening form

None of these can be handled in a short discussion. That is not my intent. There are no definitive answers. No enlightenment is offered here. But for those with the next 20 minutes free, here is my perspective as a natural submissive, even to being in professions of service. As I write all this, so many issues are touched on. So bear with me, or skip it all and consider this an early morning rant.

Unfortunately, relationships occur between two (or more... another discussion) people. Here presents immediate conflict. We all have different values, interests, prolivities, limits and boundaries. We seek "two hearts beating as one" and get "he never puts the toilet seat down".

We operate from a base composed primarily from fear. Afraid of what people will say, or do, or Divine punishment, or "does my ass look big in that position". We have preconceived ideas about what a successful relationship is and the role we play in it.

The 1950s presented a defined scenario, where the man went to work, supported his wife and children, and she maintained the home. No judgement presented here. The 60s and 70s presented new and varied roles, societally accepted. The pendulum swung to bra burning, even man-hating at one end to Phyllis Schafly's The Total Woman, greeting your man at the door in just an apron made of cellophane, at the other.

Domestic abuse finally came out from under the rug. In the early 1970s, it was never considered "rape" if it occurred in a marriage setting. I know this one personally.

Now we have the freedom to explore who we really are. This forum allows many to discuss issues they would never discuss in "real life". I have heard of many people whose lives have changed from being able to discuss as freely as we do here, all manner of issues.

As individual as we all are, is as varied as what we want in a relationship, is as varied as our emotional and mental health.

What does all this drivel mean? That there are no set rules. Our roles as male or female in any relationship are muddied with choice. I am a very strong and independent woman. I run my own business. I am very busy. I am in control of my life and my choices. I hate standing in front of my closet trying to decide what to wear. It bores me. I love my man choosing what I wear, knowing he will make me look great. I love someone knowing me so well, that he can order for me in a restaurant, and I can skip that indecisive personal torture of a big menu. It frees my mind for more important things. Can I do these myself? Of course, and usually do, but it is a preference.

Do I want to be bullied? no
Do I want to be dominated? no
But...
I love a man who is self secure, who communicates, and is willing to explore the depths of his experience with a woman who is willing to trust so deeply, that his true strength matures. Give me an Alpha Male any day. He will appreciate the truly strong (not aggressive, or passive aggressive) woman.

What are we most afraid of? We fear exposure most: that we are not really strong, or really smart, or really sexy, or always right. We always want to look good. This wreaks havoc with relationships.
How many times have you butted heads with your S.O. and neither backed down out of pride? Many relationships fail due to power struggles and lack of communication. In any democracy, there is still a leader, who has the final say. But hopefully, there has been much discussion, and advisement before that final decision is made. D/s at its best offers this.

In being a sub, I truly exercise my right of choice. No one can coerce me into anything. I am truly empowered. Most Dom(mes) will tellyou that the reall power is with the sub. It has been stated very well here. The "down on your knees, bitch" usually self-proclaimed "master" is usually a very insecure man who has to demand someone please him. Otherwise it would not be done willingly.

Cocktail (interesting name...) brings up a very common experience, and brings to light bigger issues. His approach may have been misdirected at first, but his questions and concerns are very valid. How many women (and men) have been conditioned to feel they are worthless and unworthy of love? Let's not confuse mental illness, or even just lack of self-worth, with loving more intense stimulation, or seeking to erase limitations.

As always Just Pet beautifully done. I think I have written myself out for the time being but I thank you.
I always wondered how a puritanical society like ours could not see the raw sexuality of the word cocktail, you can practically visualize the grinding of genitalia, and we use it freely and everywhere. Hell, it's in neon on many streets. It is also inferred that if you have enough of them your genitalia might be ginding with someone else's soon. I just couldn't resist.

 

[cocktail42]

Thank you, Princess
I was afraid I had killed the thread with boredom

No, Honey, I lay claim to that honor.

 

[just pet]

No, Honey, I lay claim to that honor.

No, no

Allow me...

 

[cocktail42]

No, no

Allow me...

This could go on for a long time - I am reminded of Chip and Dale, my favorite chipmunks: "No, after you ..."

Thanks again

 

[just pet]

This could go on for a long time - I am reminded of Chip and Dale, my favorite chipmunks: "No, after you ..."

Thanks again

I love Chip and Dale

"indubtably"

You heard about the man who had 2 pet chipmunks... not unlike Chip and Dale. The there of them were very close and would takl for hours in front of the fireplace, discussing Kant and the price of nuts.

One day one of the chipmunks died. The man was bereft. The other chipmunk was so depressed about it that he died too. The man was beside himself with grief.

He decided to get them stuffed and place them on the mantlepiece in memorium. He found a taxidermist and explained what he wanted.

The taxidermist asked, "Do you also want them mounted?"
"No" said the man, "just holding hands will be fine."

And the man did this by CHOICE

 

[cocktail42]

Re: Why I despise ignorance

Through a recent serious experience and some not so serious past experiences it has come to my attention why ignorant buggers should be wiped off this earth. An ignorant bugger is someone who wants to control and debase, not love, not like, not see others as humans. Anything different is seen as weakness by the ignorant bugger. Often they appear to be, and perhaps are, intelligent, humane, and emotionally warm people. In fact they are devoid of the ability to love and care because they are not willing to try and understand how others define love or care for themselves.
If you will not bow down to and agree with an ignorant bugger they will turn against you. With more ferocity than any a sadistic master could muster they will try to wipe you out, humiliate you and dehumanize you because of their lack of satisfaction of you not living in "a normal" manner. I see them as the Undead in the "Night of the Living Dead."
I am verklemt, discuss amongst yourselves, for you cannot discuss with an ignorant bugger.

Sorry I missed you in all this, I tried to answer everybody. As an ignorant bugger, surely you weren't talking about me, I have found the ability to listen partially with my nearly deaf left ear. Some things penetrated, others stayed the same.
It was nice to hear from you and you made me smile.

 

[cocktail42]

I love Chip and Dale

"indubtably"

You heard about the man who had 2 pet chipmunks... not unlike Chip and Dale. The there of them were very close and would takl for hours in front of the fireplace, discussing Kant and the price of nuts.

One day one of the chipmunks died. The man was bereft. The other chipmunk was so depressed about it that he died too. The man was beside himself with grief.

He decided to get them stuffed and place them on the mantlepiece in memorium. He found a taxidermist and explained what he wanted.

The taxidermist asked, "Do you also want them mounted?"
"No" said the man, "just holding hands will be fine."

And the man did this by CHOICE

Ah the depth of humor. I am LMAO and ROTF not because of the punchline but because they discussed Kant and the price of nuts. Thank you for that image. The man's name wasn't Roy Rogers by any chance?

 

[just pet]

Ah the depth of humor. I am LMAO and ROTF not because of the punchline but because they discussed Kant and the price of nuts. Thank you for that image. The man's name wasn't Roy Rogers by any chance?

No
But don't most men think their Trigger is worth immortalizing?

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

No
But don't most men think their Trigger is worth immortalizing?

Nah.

Its too small for that. Besides, it only takes a light pull to set it off.