Submissive's Purpose

[Pure]

Hi Miss T,

You made a lot of interesting points.


Okay, I think I am following you.

If a Dominant feels confined in his activities by the desire of the submissive, it isn't submission. Agreed.

But the converse does not hold; if the D doesn't feel confined, there is submission.


What happens and how it happens is up to the Dominant.

Now, I like anal sex.
I may get anal sex or not. It isn't up to me.
I may get flogged on a night when I really want anal.
To that end, regardless of the fact that both are activities I enjoy, I "submit" to His wishes

I not sure the 'pick from the menu' idea preserves submission, esp. if the menu is decided by the sub (through choosing the dom who agrees to or who likes that menu.)

If someone knows I like both chocolate and pistachio ice cream, then, on a given night surprises me with one I'm not expecting, I'd hardly say there's any imposition or subordination.

especially if it is a night when I would rather curl up with a good book and chill out

Now, in that I enjoy serving, there have been times when I really wanted to use the "not now, honey, I have a headache" line. But submitted and gained pleasure by serving him.

So, a submissive's pleasure is two fold...things she enjoys (kinky acts or sex), and the pleasure of serving and pleasing her Dominant.

This I find more agreeable, in that, on the evening, you didn't want any item on the menu, and he picked the menu and the item.


A submissive who controls what happens in a scene by dictating her desires and the Dominant who follows her "Directions" every time is topping from the bottom. Certainly, there are times when a Dominant will respect the submissive's wishes. Sometimes I really do have a migraine!

edited to add: Finding someone who's interests match mine doesn't mean that I dictate the agenda. Also, with time, interests change and evolve. However, a fetishist who must have beastiality involved in their play will not get passed "Hello" with me.

I agree with John, here. The D can, certainly indulge the S from time to time. As to the statement "Finding someone..... doesn't mean I dictate..." True. You don't have to. But, again, as John said, if you're doing everything you want, it's unclear if any submission is in fact occurring.

There's no reason to say 'A(dom) is dictating to B' if they're sticking to an agreed agenda. An example of this is a purchased 'domination' scene, where the man lets the 'domme' know ahead of time what he wants, more or less, and they agree. She then carries it out. I find it hard to call this domination (except perhaps by the person paying.)
__________________
[later posting]

That balance is difficult to find, I think.

If I am wiht someone who pays too much attention to how I am enjoying myself or choreographs a scene around the things that he knows I like, I feel a bit of a let down.

Most often, I have been asked what I enjoy early on in the relationshp and what my fantasies are. After that, no Dom has ever said, "Do you want....?" They just go with what feels good and most times it feels good to me as well.

My kinks are rather eclectic, I guess.

That's interesting about the choreographing. You sense being catered to.

I know I'm in the minority and quite aberrant but I think that most comfortable, routine, and predictable arrangements lose elements of domination/subordination. It's the resistance that makes 'domination' what it is, as opposed to just served up kink.

If every Friday, Jeremiah whips Zipporah, and get her really hot before making love, I say they've found a mutually agreeable kink.
Her being tied, etc. and 'forced' to undergo the whipping etc. is all 'as if'--role played--domination. Indicated by my putting forced in quotes. Introducing a menu doesn't change anything imo. If she likes the hot wax equally well, and he flips a coin to 'arbitrarily' decide which, it doesn't create domination.

Anyway, just my two cents, I know not agreeable to many.

Richard: thus the 'purpose' of a submissive is to have his or her purposes modified in a way that involves something besides pure expected pleasure.

J.

 

[MissTaken]

For some Dominants, Pure, the pleasure they seek isn't necessarily in forcing an issue.

Some really are pleased with servitude and may chose to reward the submissive with her favorite kinky act.

It is the head space.

If the Dom choses an act I enjoy, that is wonderful.

If He choses one I don't enjoy or am ambivalent about, it is still good and what I enjoy based on the context of the D/s relationship.

For some, it is that the Dominant has the freedom and control necessary to do as he wishes, whether he exerts that freedom or not.

However, in order to be a purely BDSM relationship, I wonder if you are suggesting that it would have to happen without any morals or values attached?

It is my own values that present themselves as hard limits.

No children
No animals

As for pay services, there may be others better prepared to answer this. But if in fact, a paid Dom/me follows an agenda set by the potential submissive...it does give me cause to question.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I know I'm in the minority and quite aberrant but I think that most comfortable, routine, and predictable arrangements lose elements of domination/subordination. It's the resistance that makes 'domination' what it is, as opposed to just served up kink.

I'm deviant right along with you, so don't feel too bad. I feel like, once the hard limits are established, ANYTHING GOES.

 

[Pure]

Thanks John M,

I'm deviant right along with you, so don't feel too bad. I feel like, once the hard limits are established, ANYTHING GOES.

You're actually the first person to agree that a set routine evolves away from domination. The further implication is that--as Netzach has used the term--there is 'development', i.e., a process of commanding/teaching/ inculcating subordination or 'slavery.' If it's ever 'done', that's certainly not early in the game.

 

[psiberzerker]

I don't get the assertion that if a subject confines the actions of the dominant, it's not submission. The top is a position of responsibility, and this, by it's nature is confining. The Dom/me doesn't have carte blanche simply because beyond a certain point, it's abusive and/or dangerous.
I don't concider using safe words, or refusing something that makes you uncomfortable "Topping from the bottom". That phrase, to me, represents a far more subtle passive aggression that's disruptive to the typical Ds relationship. I happen to like bottoms that kick, scream, and take me on intellectually, but then, I don't really like numb fucks.
Even for those of you who follow the typical script, the sub is entitled to an opinion, and asserting it. Perhaps they may have to be more politic about it, but that's part of the challenge. Play the game, but don't take it too seriously. After all, we're all people here.

 

[Moyds_jewel]

point of clarification

<snip from Pure>
jewel said //After all, what is the point of a bondage
submissive giving herself to a pain dominant? //

The point would be that that's a fuller, truer, more
demanding submission precisely because pain is NOT her
bag. <end snip>

By such reasoning then, it is the purpose of a submissive to engage in antithetical behavior/experiences with an incompatible dominant in the search for 'truer, fuller, more demanding submission'?

<snip from Pure>
Further, since she loves and gets off on bondage, that
isn't really 'submission' at all, it's (primarily) pleasing
herself. <end snip>

By such reasoning, a submissive who adores anal, oral, and vaginal sex cannot be said to be 'in submission' when her dominant chooses to engage in sex with her? Even though (as MissT points out) she has no control over when it occurs? Forgive me if I have misunderstood, Pure, but I thought submission meant the wilful surrender of one's power/control to another. I did not realize it meant the moment one finds pleasure in a dominant's direction or activity, submission ends.

<snip from Pure>
If I get off on bondage and pay (or otherwise get) some
one to tie me so I'll get aroused, and can later jerk off
thinking of the whole thing, where exactly is the
submission? <end snip>

There is no submission in your example here, Pure, because the experience is within one's own control. Submission to a dominant must, by definition, involve loss of control and willing obedience to the will and direction of the dominant. The submissive has no control over the what, when, where, how long, toys used, etc. or indeed, of any of the activities in which the dominant wishes to engage. Her role, once submission is given, is to obey.

The fact that my dominant and I share some likes and dislikes does not mean he is locked into avoiding those dislikes nor engaging in only those likes that we share. He may, of course, do anything he wishes within the context of our negotiated limits. I have no expectations regarding the direction of our play together other than I wish above all to please him. Any dominant worthy of the title will find ways to stretch their submissive's limits, push and prod them toward a fulfilling, deeply rewarding and at times scary and difficult development as a submissive.

My point, admittedly a poorly illustrated one, is that ANY human romantic relationship ('nilla or otherwise) must have a basic compatibility to be sustainable. And I respectfully disagree with the implicit thought that submission to a dominant with whom one is compatible will result in a less true/less pure level of submission.

jewel

PS...sorry about the snipping. I'm not conversant with the tricks of quoting here.

 

[Richard49]

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

Does that mean that those submissives are not really submitting?

.

Yes in BDSM
but what about
D/s ?

 

[Richard49]

Re: The purpose of a submissive

[B
Richard, what is the purpose of a dominant?
Can a dominant dominate in the absense of a submissive? (what changes about a dominant when there is no one around to dominate?)

jewel [/B]

rather then loss focus on this thread how about
starting a new thread with this paragraph?

 

[Richard49]

,

Are you suggesting that you only believe someone is submitting when they do something they would never normally do or want to do?

If I recieve pleasure, I am not submitting?

I would not say that

You can submit and get that
depends on what Dom wants from you and pleases him

 

[Pure]

Hi Jewel,
That is a well stated post, and I agree there are some puzzling or paradoxical looking things about 'submission', in my view, esp. when it's consensual routinized, hedged around with lots of specific limits, peppered with 'safewords' etc. And when there's a pre-agreed 'menu.' You make your case persuasively and carefully. Below are simply my individual and aberrant views, since perhaps you're interested in exploring the topic.


<snip from Pure>
Further, since she loves and gets off on bondage, that
isn't really 'submission' at all, it's (primarily) pleasing
herself. <end snip>
[jewel]
By such reasoning, a submissive who adores anal, oral, and vaginal sex cannot be said to be 'in submission' when her dominant chooses to engage in sex with her?

Yes, that's right. If she loves a 'classic fuck' and that's what he's doing-- at least at that moment, it's not clear he is dominating, or she, submitting. Now you may tell me he's got her rimming all his friends much of the rest of the time, and she's whipped till she screams, in between. Well, then yes, there is overall dominance and submission, and perhaps they're simply enjoying a 'fuck break'. Dominance is not at every moment, everyone concedes, esp. in a 24/7 relationship.


Even though (as MissT points out) she has no control over when it occurs?

Miss T had two scenarios. One with a menu, one with the 'sub' disinclined to sex at a particular moment. I don't think 'submitting' according to an agreed menu is other than mutually enjoyable agreed kink.

I tended to agree that if she goes ahead when disinlined, as in Miss T's second scenario, there is an element of submission. IMO.
So I answer 'no' to that question (meaning 'yes' there's some submission) in times not chosen. We sort of agree.


Forgive me if I have misunderstood, Pure, but I thought submission meant the wilful surrender of one's power/control to another. I did not realize it meant the moment one finds pleasure in a dominant's direction or activity, submission ends.

Submission means surrender and willingness to undergo a degree of imposition on one's will. If there's an agreed menu: he advertizes "I do x y z" and she has a list "I love X Y Z" (say, X is bondage), then their getting together and doing that stuff is not necessarily evidence of any domination or submission. Any more than if she advertizes "I wear PVC" and I respond "I love PVC" and we get together and do it with her wearing PVC.

I didn't say, the moment there was pleasure, submission ends. Of course not. I'm saying if the sub gets her pleasure on a planned basis, indeed expects it, and expects it in certain ways according to an agreed menu (for example, she chose the dom with the agreeable menu), THAT pleasure counts against there being submission in the doing of those menu items.


<snip from Pure>
If I get off on bondage and pay (or otherwise get) some
one to tie me so I'll get aroused, and can later jerk off
thinking of the whole thing, where exactly is the
submission? <end snip>


There is no submission in your example here, Pure, because the experience is within one's own control. Submission to a dominant must, by definition, involve loss of control and willing obedience to the will and direction of the dominant. The submissive has no control over the what, when, where, how long, toys used, etc. or indeed, of any of the activities in which the dominant wishes to engage. Her role, once submission is given, is to obey.

The fact that my dominant and I share some likes and dislikes does not mean he is locked into avoiding those dislikes nor engaging in only those likes that we share. He may, of course, do anything he wishes within the context of our negotiated limits. I have no expectations regarding the direction of our play together other than I wish above all to please him. Any dominant worthy of the title will find ways to stretch their submissive's limits, push and prod them toward a fulfilling, deeply rewarding and at times scary and difficult development as a submissive.

My point, admittedly a poorly illustrated one, is that ANY human romantic relationship ('nilla or otherwise) must have a basic compatibility to be sustainable. And I respectfully disagree with the implicit thought that submission to a dominant with whom one is compatible will result in a less true/less pure level of submission.

That's well put, though you narrow the scope in talking of 'human romantic relationship.' I think the key issue is the sentence I italicked, about whether he's 'locked in' (to the agreed likes list).
John M talked about this, when a dom ends up feeling and perhaps being constricted or constrained. I would add that the
'lock' or constraint isn't subjective: it can't be known simply by asking the supposed dom/me. My view is that the issue is predictability. If the sub can predict things, and knows they will follow the agreed menu, then it's shared kink, imo. Just that.

Example. The dom/me does only bondage, in 27 varieties. That's what he likes and does. If the sub, who likes those 27 varieties, picks him and they do the thing, I don't see submission necessarily, even though he never feels limited or constrained. Because of the predictability, the alleged sub is simply using him to get pleasure in an agreed mode-- which is what all kinky folk do.

I've enjoyed the fine quality of your thinking and ability to articulate the issues. There are some deep problems in ordinary views, and they seldom get aired. No one has a 'final answer', but above are my thoughts.

Best regards,
J.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Pure, i think one shouldn't assume (and not saying that you are) that because a submissive enjoys a particular act, that they submit BECAUSE they enjoy that particular act. speaking for myself only, my submission has nothing to do with what i like. i have submitted many times in many situations that were horrible and psychologically/emotionally painful to me. not because i wanted to, but because i am a submissive, and that is my natural inclination, how i respond to things, how i deal with things, is to submit. to serve. to please. whatever. that is why i say my purpose as a submissive is to serve and please others.

 

[Pure]

Hi Owned,

That's a good point;

Pure, i think one shouldn't assume (and not saying that you are) that because a submissive enjoys a particular act, that they submit BECAUSE they enjoy that particular act. speaking for myself only, my submission has nothing to do with what i like. i have submitted many times in many situations that were horrible and psychologically/emotionally painful to me. not because i wanted to, but because i am a submissive, and that is my natural inclination, how i respond to things, how i deal with things, is to submit. to serve. to please. whatever. that is why i say my purpose as a submissive is to serve and please others.

I don't have any problem saying that the scenes[Added: situations, episodes, events] you describe, taken in all, look to me, in my opinion, like submission. That's in part because it sometimes goes 'against the grain.' The cases I doubt --i.e, think of as kink only-- involve alleged subs who submit according to an agreed menu (from which the dom/me chooses) and so receive sexual pleasure in expected and planned, and predictable ways.

In a word, it ain't service if you've set it up on completely agreeable terms that ensure that you get off in those ways and no others. But it may be fun.

Thanks for an interesting post.

 

[ownedsubgal]

"In a word, it ain't service if you've set it up on completely agreeable terms that ensure that you get off in those ways and no others. But it may be fun."

and on that point Pure, i agree with you totally.

btw, i wasn't describing "scenes", just life.

 

[Moyds_jewel]

Thanks for clarifyin', Pure

<snip from Pure>
... I agree there are some puzzling or
paradoxical looking things about 'submission',
in my view, esp. when it's consensual routinized,
hedged around with lots of specific limits,
peppered with 'safewords' etc. And when
there's a pre-agreed 'menu.' <end snip>

I agree that if a D/s relationship is 'routinized' (if that's a word ) hedged with lotsa do's and don'ts, and in otherways predescribed, there is not much submission OR domination occurring.

<snip from Pure>
I didn't say, the moment there was
pleasure, submission ends. Of course
not. I'm saying if the sub gets her
pleasure on a planned basis, indeed
expects it, and expects it in certain
ways according to an agreed menu
(for example, she chose the dom
with the agreeable menu), THAT
pleasure counts against there being
submission in the doing of those
menu items. <end snip>

Well, as you state it, I agree. I guess my disagreement stems from the implication that chosing a dominant with whom one is compatible means that ergo, everything that follows is "planned" or "expected." I do not equate "compatible" with "planned menu" but rather, common ground, understanding, same playing field, even.

Playing soccer with a dominant who is playing hockey may get us both to the goal occasionally. But I see the majority of time spent in frustration, failure, loss of self worth, and disappointment.

You know...I think we are basically on the same page here, Pure. Just not the same paragraph.

Thank you for your considered and lucid response. You can never have too much lucidity. <G>

jewel
PS. I agree completely with owned: if you set it up to be just what you want, it ain't submission, but it sure is fun.

 

[MissTaken]

Well, I suggested by example some of the "menu" items.

For the sake of discussion, it is likely that I will become involved with a Dominant for whom the menu items are not a perfect match. The one checklist that I have, has no less than 200 items on it...what are chances?

Firstly, submission does occur with surrender. I never know when or what will happen with me. It is not my choice, and in so giving up the choice, I am surrendering.

Secondly, in terms of the menu items, anal and bondage, I may engage with a Dominant who doesn't like anal. Or, I may engage with a Dominant who enjoys anal far more often than I would prefer to have it. Does that mean that I am going to negotiate anal sex to once per week? No. Once submission occurs, it is his choice with or without the menu items.

Lastly, our menu items change with time, experience and trust. As we grow into our submission, our mind opens to all sorts of possibilities. By example, when I first began my own journey, I was opposed to any pain/pleasure activity. No spankings, no crops, no floggers, no anything that remotely resembles painful activities. Slowly, with training and trust, those things changed. Enough said...

 

[MissTaken]

Yes in BDSM
but what about
D/s ?

Some can submit without love in any mix of the alphabet soup. Trust may beget love, one doesn't need to love or be in love to trust.

Affection, respect and trust can happen and be the foundation for a "platonic" D/s relationship.

I, personally, have known a greater degree of submission to a friend/mentor than to a lover.

Does this make sense?

 

[MissTaken]

While the thread seems to veer off topic and back on, I must say, it is a great thread, Richard.

Thanks!



I suppose that before identifying the purpose of a submissive, one must identify what makes submission.

 

[lark sparrow]

I think the problem with trying to qualify and quantify what D/s is in theory (for all) is that it disregards the "magic", humanity and individuality that separates it from such things as rape, psychosis, brutal force and the ever popular abuse.

 

[Pure]

Hi Jewel,

Merriam Webster site:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary


One entry found for routinize.
Main Entry: rou·tin·ize
Pronunciation: rü-'tE-"nIz, 'rü-t&n-"Iz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
Date: 1921
: to discipline in or reduce to a routine
- rou·tin·i·za·tion /(")rü-"tE-n&-'zA-sh&n, "rü-t&n-&-/ noun

 

[Pure]

MissT

//For the sake of discussion, it is likely that I will become involved with a Dominant for whom the menu items are not a perfect match. The one checklist that I have, has no less than 200 items on it...what are chances? //

For Dom/mes

A potential submitting person turns up with a 200 item checklist.
would you:

a) put the list aside and give her a good hard (consensual)fuck
b) ask her to bend over and (consensually) insert the list
c) say, "That's fine" and once she's bound, do something non-injurious but embarrassing that's NOT on the list
d) bring out your 500 item menu and sit down for a careful cross check to settle on the 153 items definitely common to the two lists, and the 17 possibly common items, and refer the latter list to your respective lawyers to work out.
e) have her copy out your 500 item list and append her signature in agreement as your first disciplinary assignment.
f) other (specify)

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

f) tell her to find a slave who will provide for her 200 needs and wants...because she certainly doesn't want to submit very far, now does she?

 

[MissTaken]

What happens with that 200 item bdsm checklist, really?

I don't even look at them until I get to know someone.

Bingo!
The menu isn't nearly as important as you would like to think it is.

The relationship is built on the fundamentals of any relationship and the kink and BDSM will come into play later.

MY point was:

The "menu and match" theory is invalid because there is never a perfect match and who would want that? How would one gain new experiences and grow if they were with someone who only liked what they did?

Some of us have hard limits, which are very few limits that would preclude getting involved with someone. In general, the "menu" is a rough guide to assist one in making choices, it is not something to used concretely.

Heck, I just updated mine last night and what? There were things on there that I had previously said I would never do that I now enjoy very much.

What is the difference between posting an ad on a vanilla site and saying, I like classic movies, country music, and hate sports. When someone contacts you who is in three soft ball leagues and goes to nascar races every weekend, are you likely to get involved ? No. Might you? Possibly...ya just might learn to like Nascar races!

And as for not submitting if someone's interests cross a hard limit of mine? Well, chances are that the Dominant isn't going to select me if He needs to watch His submissive engage in beastiality. The control in the initial decision is shared.

 

[MissTaken]

I think the problem with trying to qualify and quantify what D/s is in theory (for all) is that it disregards the "magic", humanity and individuality that separates it from such things as rape, psychosis, brutal force and the ever popular abuse.

You can try to define and hash out the theories of BDSM, but I so agree that in doing so, it negates the intangible variables of free choice, love and the pleasure of two individual and unique people.

Good post, lark sparrow.

As usual

 

[Pure]

John M said,

//f) tell her to find a slave who will provide for her 200 needs and wants...because she certainly doesn't want to submit very far, now does she?//

Testify, brother!

 

[Moyds_jewel]

'Mornin' Pure

Hi Jewel,

Merriam Webster site:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary


One entry found for routinize.
Main Entry: rou·tin·ize
Pronunciation: rü-'tE-"nIz, 'rü-t&n-"Iz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
Date: 1921
: to discipline in or reduce to a routine
- rou·tin·i·za·tion /(")rü-"tE-n&-'zA-sh&n, "rü-t&n-&-/ noun

Duly noted. Thanks. And thanks also for the invigoratin' discussion :

regards,
jewel