Thoughts On Submission...What Is It Really?

[RJMasters]

i find myself nodding along with almost everyone of Your posts RJ, Sir, and once again You've summed up my thoughts as well. i believe that if it pleases Master that i 'serve' Him dinner before i serve myself than that is showing my submission to Him. i think it all comes down to the dynamics of the relationship and the people in said relationship. it's another one of those what works for us may not work for you, and that's ok. we all have different views and ideas, there is no right way, and just because my way of 'showing my submission' to my Master does not match cats way doesn't mean mine or hers is wrong, it just simply means they are different and that our submission means different things to us. i don't think there is going to be any 'right' answer, but it's a great discussion and makes you really think about what it means to you.

Nods I agree Rose. And you don't have to call me Sir, RJ is fine.

I think arguements can be made that are valid points which state that for submission to be real, there must be some sort of proof or evidence with which to back that up. Such as as obedience or things that are done through offered service. But the same could be said about love. A person can say I love you, but unless there is proof of that, then its just words. Same with anything...actions speak louder than words, but in saying that I also understand that behind actions are the motivations from which those actions come.

I think that a vanilla wife and a submissive could both cook a meal, and the motivation behind both could be...

1. Done for the dominant/husband
2. Done because they both love their dominant/husband
3. Because both see it as a sense of duty
4. Because the dominant/husband expects dinner when he gets home.

One can be completely vanilla and the other completely D/s and the only thing that truly distinguishes them is that the submissive is self-aware that she is his submissive and that she consents to being his. This alone is what changes the dynamic and makes the PE unique in ways the vanilla couple do not share.

 

[lil_slave_rose]

Nods I agree Rose. And you don't have to call me Sir, RJ is fine.

I think arguements can be made that are valid points which state that for submission to be real, there must be some sort of proof or evidence with which to back that up. Such as as obedience or things that are done through offered service. But the same could be said about love. A person can say I love you, but unless there is proof of that, then its just words. Same with anything...actions speak louder than words, but in saying that I also understand that behind actions are the motivations from which those actions come.

I think that a vanilla wife and a submissive could both cook a meal, and the motivation behind both could be...

1. Done for the dominant/husband
2. Done because they both love their dominant/husband
3. Because both see it as a sense of duty
4. Because the dominant/husband expects dinner when he gets home.

One can be completely vanilla and the other completely D/s and the only thing that truly distinguishes them is that the submissive is self-aware that she is his submissive and that she consents to being his. This alone is what changes the dynamic and makes the PE unique in ways the vanilla couple do not share.

*nods* exactly and once again, i agree 100%...all in the mindset and as someone else (i believe it was cutiemouse) said submission lies 'between the ears' i do what i do to show my submission to Master because it's what He wants me to do, not because it's what i'm told makes me a good submissive. i've been told many things that would make me a 'better' submissive, but those things do no please my Master, therefore doing them would not be a sign of my submission to Him, unless of course those things told to me to make me a 'better' submissive are told to me by Him....

 

[catalina_francisco]

*nods* exactly and once again, i agree 100%...all in the mindset and as someone else (i believe it was cutiemouse) said submission lies 'between the ears' i do what i do to show my submission to Master because it's what He wants me to do, not because it's what i'm told makes me a good submissive. i've been told many things that would make me a 'better' submissive, but those things do no please my Master, therefore doing them would not be a sign of my submission to Him, unless of course those things told to me to make me a 'better' submissive are told to me by Him....

You have no argument from me on this...but also I never said any different. I am beginning to think perhaps this is not the place for it and it is better reserved for the closed sub list I am on where putting thoughts out there are actually taken up as positive and added to.

Catalina

 

[lil_slave_rose]

You have no argument from me on this...but also I never said any different. I am beginning to think perhaps this is not the place for it and it is better reserved for the closed sub list I am on where putting thoughts out there are actually taken up as positive and added to.

Catalina

no, cat, i've enjoyed this discussion as i've said in an earlier post. it has really made me think about what it means to me and why i feel the way i show my submission to Him is indeed a 'show of submission' . this was a great thread and a great discussion, i've tried to add to it, and i sincerely hope i did not make you feel like i was being negative toward how you feel or your original post, that was not my intent.

 

[catalina_francisco]

no, cat, i've enjoyed this discussion as i've said in an earlier post. it has really made me think about what it means to me and why i feel the way i show my submission to Him is indeed a 'show of submission' . this was a great thread and a great discussion, i've tried to add to it, and i sincerely hope i did not make you feel like i was being negative toward how you feel or your original post, that was not my intent.

Thanks..guess maybe I am reading comments here and there a bit differently to how they are meant..it happens in cyberland unfortunately.

Catalina

 

[lil_slave_rose]

Thanks..guess maybe I am reading comments here and there a bit differently to how they are meant..it happens in cyberland unfortunately.

Catalina

you're right it does and i'm sorry that you read me wrong i think there needs to be alot more of these types of threads instead of the mundane 'i wanna be in the lifestyle but my partner doesn't how do i make that happen' threads. i love discussion and i love debates (that are debated respecfully and with the thought in mind that what works for me may not work for you type thinking) so again, thank you for this thread, and i hope it continues and others have more to say also. the fact is we are ALL different so we are all going to answer this very differently....that's the beauty of it, and if we're open minded enough we can take a step outside of our own reality and see it through someone else's eyes and maybe find something we never thought of before

 

[RJMasters]

I really am not seeing why you continue to come across as defensive RJ....as I have stated, this is a discussion about submission, not about who is right (note I have said many times I think I fall way short of doing a good job, hence why I give it thought), or who is wrong, what is best and what is worst. If it pleases a Dominant, yes, it is submisison if that is what they term it, but what I was referring to originally is when it is a self declared statment of a sub that their serving first is an act of submission which it is clear has often not been discussed with the Dominant ever, and is likely how they have done things pre-D/s days. I am sharing here in the hope others might also not only offer their views, but as some have said, thought about their submission from a different angle to what they had before...I have always been lead to believe by PYL's they appreciate a submissive who looks at their submisison and how it reflects on their Dominant, how it is processed, and why it is so, and how they may better serve their Dominant.

I'm sorry you seem to find it offensive that I do think, and I do try and make distinctions in my world so I can better serve instead of stumble around and hope it all works out in the end, but one of the things he has always said about why he chose me almost straight away is because I have a mind, I do think, I do take my submission seriously, and it is more than a hypothetical situation here and there I play around with and then believe I kow it all...in fact I am so sure I don't have it right despite living it as a reality 24/7 faceto face, it continues to be one of the things I think about most in life, and is not reliant on anyone else's way but his, but sure doesn't hurt for me to ponder perhaps what I am missing, what thoughts and ways others might have, sghare views and ways with others in a similar situation, and how I can improve and not sit back and pat myself for a job well done when it will never be done well enough to be perfect. You see, I see submission as a growth process, just as I do Dominance....if either a sub or Dom/me sit back and dust their hands off in self satisfaction, I think they begin to stagnate at best and never move forward or challenge themselves and develop further...sharing with others, contemplating every aspect of D/s repeatedly, and shifting outside our predefined comfort zones to at least try and relate to another's POV all lead in the direction of growth IMHO.

Catalina

I am not being defensive Cat. I am sorry you see it as me being that way.

Hoever much of your position is predicated upon the fact that many things people would claim as submissive are or (may) not really be submissve, or you are saying that you don't understand how people can make such a claim if they did it before they got into a D/s relationship.

If you really mean what you said above in this post, why is there a constant need to do the vanilla comparitive in order to by contrast make valide through differnation? I mean if it is submissive to you, does it matter a hoot if vanilla people do it or not? Is the goal to be different or is it to be submissive?

My position is not a defensive one as much as it is one that points to self accountability within one's own relationship without having to compare or distance oneself from what others may or may not what you find submission to be to F.

If you don't see serving food first to F as anything submissive, then I swear to you I have no problem with that whatso ever. What I do have a problem with though is when you infer by exclusion because it doesn't fit your view that another might not be able to claim serving dinner as a legitimate sign of their own submission to their master or dominant. And the opinions I have expressed here on this topic is to get you to see that yes it is possible for others to make such a claim and for it to be true. whether you fully understand that or not or whether you agree with that or not is ok.

The title of this thread was about defining submission, however it quickly turned to how are "we" different than the vanilla folk. I find that using vanilla relationships as a means to define by difference what the meaning of submission is in a D/s or M/s context to be not only unneccessary but also a very inaccurate method.

 

[JMohegan]

Not disagreeing with you JM, but there are many people who get married where the wife meets the criteria of being 100% consenting to the love and "obey" part of their marriage vows.

So obedience can also be seen in many vanilla type relationships as well. You could ask many submissives if they love and obey their Dominants and they would say yes. You could ask many wives if they love and obey their husbands and they would say yes.

RJ, I'm having an epiphany moment here. All of a sudden I understand why you & I never seem to be on the same page when we talk about this particular issue.

If you tell me that there are non-D/s wives in modern America who still include "obey" as part of their marriage vows, then of course I believe you. But this is not true in the blue state, liberal, urban world in which I live. Where I live, that hasn't been true for roughly 30 years.

You talk about the "duty" of a wife to her husband but honestly, RJ, that is a concept that has no relevance and no place in my portion of the mainstream world. Women are no longer raised to think that way here, and men are no longer raised to even consider that thinking acceptable.

It's an egalitarian world of personal relationships, in which both parties are expected to negotiate housework, finances, and indeed everything else. Any "duty" that anyone has is to that very egalitarian principle. Per the terms of modern fairness, there are no duties that are considered to be gender specific. So the wife has no more duty to serve her husband than he has to serve her.

This is what I am, and always have been, up against when I go out in the world to find a mate. This is the cultural expectation that I have to overcome. And one of the hardest things about D/s for my partners to accept has been the idea that obedience itself does not (or should not) reflect negatively on one's self-esteem.

I see two separate conversations taking place on this thread. The first is talking about valid expressions of submission and frankly that is not a conversation that interests me beyond the context of my own personal relationships.

The second is a literal attempt to answer the question: What is the difference between mainstream devotion and D/s-style submission?

In Saudi Arabia, or 1950's America, or devout modern America, or rural red state America, or indeed a host of other places, I can see why the lines might be blurry and this might be a complicated question necessitating vague and abstract comments such as "she feels owned".

But in a fundamentally egalitarian world like mine, it's really not all that hard to see the distinction between the two.

 

[JMohegan]

Thanks JM. And your point about mainstream society not existing, or being labelled Dominant or submissive is something I see happening often and cannot understand. I love living this lifestyle, but I do not like applying the roles to everyone I see in the street or day to day living because they just are not D/s, they are just people living their life their way just as we live ours our way.

Here's what I see happening, not so much on this thread but rather in general among those who spend time discussing D/s or BDSM.

There seems to be a tendency to take everything that is positive, wonderful, appreciated, delightful, arousing, and fulfilling in a relationship and attribute that to the essence of D/s itself.

I can understand why some people do this. If they have been in non-kinky relationships that were unsatisfying or just plain ghastly, and then suddenly find themselves over the moon delirious in a D/s relationship, I can understand why they might look at the entirety of the new experience and attribute all the positives to the new dynamic. The exuberance is understandable and in a way, I often see it as very sweet.

After a while, however, all of these sweet expressions of excitement take on a tone of collective superiority and create a mythological representation of the lifestyle that just doesn't hold up to the facts.

This concerns me for several reasons, the most significant of which is the disservice done to the kinky or kinky-curious themselves. Because the cumulative effect sometimes seems to result in something like this. A longing for *more* submissiveness or more elaborate D/s, as if this would somehow convey additional closeness, love, devotion, etc. in a relationship.

It might, but it might not.

As you well know, Catalina, a TPE relationship is far from easy. And if a person does not possess an inherent need for this level of control, such a situation would be far from fantasy fantastic. In fact, it could be hell!

 

[lil_slave_rose]

Here's what I see happening, not so much on this thread but rather in general among those who spend time discussing D/s or BDSM.

There seems to be a tendency to take everything that is positive, wonderful, appreciated, delightful, arousing, and fulfilling in a relationship and attribute that to the essence of D/s itself.

I can understand why some people do this. If they have been in non-kinky relationships that were unsatisfying or just plain ghastly, and then suddenly find themselves over the moon delirious in a D/s relationship, I can understand why they might look at the entirety of the new experience and attribute all the positives to the new dynamic. The exuberance is understandable and in a way, I often see it as very sweet.

After a while, however, all of these sweet expressions of excitement take on a tone of collective superiority and create a mythological representation of the lifestyle that just doesn't hold up to the facts.

This concerns me for several reasons, the most significant of which is the disservice done to the kinky or kinky-curious themselves. Because the cumulative effect sometimes seems to result in something like this. A longing for *more* submissiveness or more elaborate D/s, as if this would somehow convey additional closeness, love, devotion, etc. in a relationship.

It might, but it might not.

As you well know, Catalina, a TPE relationship is far from easy. And if a person does not possess an inherent need for this level of control, such a situation would be far from fantasy fantastic. In fact, it could be hell!

you are right, but the person's post that you put a link to admitted she could not see herself in that much of a power exchange. it's ok to be in 'awe' of someone and fantasize about that which we know in reality we could not achieve. i, for one, am in awe of Cat on alot of ways she lives her life but that does not mean that i need to be more submissive to live up to what she does, it just simply means that i fantasize about having that level of TPE. for me D/s DOES carry over into every aspect of my life, and it's not just the 'beginning of the relationship whatevers' my relationship with Master is much different than any relationship i've ever had. if you are in a D/s relationship how can you not attribute all of those wonderful relationship things to the D/s lifestyle....as that is what the dynamic of the relationship is....i don't understand what you're saying JM....and it's noon and i've yet to sleep so i may just be reading it completely wrong, if i am, please forgive me and forget about my post *smiles* i'm off to dreamland......

 

[JMohegan]

you are right, but the person's post that you put a link to admitted she could not see herself in that much of a power exchange. it's ok to be in 'awe' of someone and fantasize about that which we know in reality we could not achieve. i, for one, am in awe of Cat on alot of ways she lives her life but that does not mean that i need to be more submissive to live up to what she does, it just simply means that i fantasize about having that level of TPE. for me D/s DOES carry over into every aspect of my life, and it's not just the 'beginning of the relationship whatevers' my relationship with Master is much different than any relationship i've ever had. if you are in a D/s relationship how can you not attribute all of those wonderful relationship things to the D/s lifestyle....as that is what the dynamic of the relationship is....i don't understand what you're saying JM....and it's noon and i've yet to sleep so i may just be reading it completely wrong, if i am, please forgive me and forget about my post *smiles* i'm off to dreamland......

No problem. I'll try to explain my point in a different way.

There are certain things that many people crave as the ultimate goals in a personal relationship.

Love
Deep intimacy
Commitment
Personal happiness
etc.

These things are not unique to D/s. Right? Non-kinky people experience them too, and that's what I meant when I said that these achievements are not attributable to D/s itself.

As for your comments about being in "awe of Cat on alot of ways she lives her life", personally I see an enormous distinction between respect and admiration for an individual vs. respect and admiration for the extent of a personal preference or need. The former makes perfect sense to me, the latter none at all.

If you asked any one of my partners why they respect me, one thing they would say is: He is a man of honor. "Honor-bound" is a phrase I used on RJ's thread, and it is a tremendously important concept in my life. But who taught me how to be an honorable man? My non-kinky father, that's who.

If you asked my partners why they trust me, one thing they would say is: He is honest. Who taught me to be honest, with diligence and discipline throughout my childhood? My non-kinky mother.

I learned most of what I know about ways to make a woman feel needed, wanted and loved from watching my father. I learned most of what I know about leadership and motivation from my football coach. I have a strong desire for intimacy and many skills that are extremely useful in developing a strong, sustainable, deeply satisfying and over the moon fantastic relationship with a woman who is well-matched to my needs.

Those traits and skills explain, in part, my success as a Dominant man. But none of these traits and skills are unique to D/s participants, and none of these traits and skills has anything to do with the fact that I'm Dominant or heterosexual or a sadist, and none of them would be able to overcome the negative effect of a relationship with a woman whose needs were not well-matched to my own.

In short, it isn't the lifestyle flavor that makes any relationship exquisite. It is the character and skill of the participants, and the extent to which they are well-matched.

 

[the captians wench]

I understand what you're saying JM and I think that's really what I had in mind when Cat posted this thread.

There are those who wish to be "true submissives" or "more submissive" and so on. They come up with reasons why they are more submissive than others, or what you have to do to really be submissive and such. Infact I fell into that trap at one point.

I felt like I had to prove my submission (tho to whom I'm not sure). I would call every one who proclaimed himself a dom Sir (and heaven forbid I forget the capital s ). I never sat in a chair, I always kneeled beside someone, or off in a cornor by myself. I walked behind the male friends I had......well you get the point. But doing these things was not enough, I had to tell people that I did these things and almost boast about what a good submissive I was, hoping to get a pat on the head and an acknowledgement of my "'accomplishments".

But it wasn't true. Mostly because of why I did it, and it felt as empty as it was. And I've learned better.

It really doesn't matter how submissive you are, or if you're a better submissive than some one else. It isn't a compition, and it isn't a game. I do the things I do because I love those whom I do it for, and it makes them happy, which makes me happy. That's all that really matters. The act itself couldn't matter less.

 

[Daddyslilpet]

I understand what you're saying JM and I think that's really what I had in mind when Cat posted this thread.

There are those who wish to be "true submissives" or "more submissive" and so on. They come up with reasons why they are more submissive than others, or what you have to do to really be submissive and such. Infact I fell into that trap at one point.

I felt like I had to prove my submission (tho to whom I'm not sure). I would call every one who proclaimed himself a dom Sir (and heaven forbid I forget the capital s ). I never sat in a chair, I always kneeled beside someone, or off in a cornor by myself. I walked behind the male friends I had......well you get the point. But doing these things was not enough, I had to tell people that I did these things and almost boast about what a good submissive I was, hoping to get a pat on the head and an acknowledgement of my "'accomplishments".

But it wasn't true. Mostly because of why I did it, and it felt as empty as it was. And I've learned better.

It really doesn't matter how submissive you are, or if you're a better submissive than some one else. It isn't a compition, and it isn't a game. I do the things I do because I love those whom I do it for, and it makes them happy, which makes me happy. That's all that really matters. The act itself couldn't matter less.

Very well said! I especially agree with the last part whole heartedly.

 

[babiesmiles]

Whatever anyone else considers a valid or invalid expression of anything within the confines of their personal relationships is none of my business and I really don't care.

However, over the course of my adult life I have cared a great deal about the way in which my personal needs deviate from the norms of society. For me, identifying and explaining the disconnect between my needs and cultural norms has always been a critical part of the process of finding a well-matched mate.

Leaving aside pain play and all things physical, there is only one thing I need but have no right to expect as part of a mainstream relationship in modern America. And that one thing is: obedience that is willingly and consistently granted over a sustained period of time.

Pick any other behavioral trait that I have ever craved or needed in a partner: devotion, eagerness to please, willingness to sacrifice for a partner's happiness, etc., and I can point to mainstream women who possess these very same things and express them without violating any cultural norms whatsoever.

Does this make them submissive? Per my definition, I'd say: not necessarily.

They may be latent submissives (i.e., those who would appreciate a relationship involving obedience if they knew such a thing were possible and had an opportunity to try it out).

But they are not submissive simply because they serve dinner first, prepare special surprises to please their partner, strive to serve and please him, or frequently place his needs above their own.

It seems to me that identifying these things as defining elements of submission is essentially saying that the mainstream itself does not exist. Or more correctly, that there are no standards of behavior distinguishing non-bedroom D/s from commonly accepted practices in our society.

That view is as valid as any other personal opinion, but it is not one that I share. As a practical matter, I do see a difference between cultural expectations and D/s, and that difference is summarized by the concept of obedience.

I loved your post JM .
And as I said above this is the way I freely chose to get over my hard times , an act of faith in the relationship maybe .... but as I stated above I needed a compass in my personal "storm " and I was given the choice to find one suitable to me.
Obedience seemed to me the one which could give me the inner guideline i need at the moment.

 

[JMohegan]

It really doesn't matter how submissive you are, or if you're a better submissive than some one else. It isn't a compition, and it isn't a game. I do the things I do because I love those whom I do it for, and it makes them happy, which makes me happy. That's all that really matters. The act itself couldn't matter less.

Wench, you're on a roll today!

I just read your quote from the other thread, and think it applies here too:

I think this goes doubly for relationships. If you're not willing to work for them, they usually aren't worth getting into....

Diamonds don't come out of the mine all sparkly. You have to tumble, polish and shape them a bit before they're really worth anything.

Awesome.

I loved your post JM .
And as I said above this is the way I freely chose to get over my hard times , an act of faith in the relationship maybe .... but as I stated above I needed a compass in my personal "storm " and I was given the choice to find one suitable to me.
Obedience seemed to me the one which could give me the inner guideline i need at the moment.

Thanks, babiesmiles, and oh my.... that's lovely.

 

[Netzach]

RJ, I'm having an epiphany moment here. All of a sudden I understand why you & I never seem to be on the same page when we talk about this particular issue.

If you tell me that there are non-D/s wives in modern America who still include "obey" as part of their marriage vows, then of course I believe you. But this is not true in the blue state, liberal, urban world in which I live. Where I live, that hasn't been true for roughly 30 years.

You talk about the "duty" of a wife to her husband but honestly, RJ, that is a concept that has no relevance and no place in my portion of the mainstream world. Women are no longer raised to think that way here, and men are no longer raised to even consider that thinking acceptable.

It's an egalitarian world of personal relationships, in which both parties are expected to negotiate housework, finances, and indeed everything else. Any "duty" that anyone has is to that very egalitarian principle. Per the terms of modern fairness, there are no duties that are considered to be gender specific. So the wife has no more duty to serve her husband than he has to serve her.

This is what I am, and always have been, up against when I go out in the world to find a mate. This is the cultural expectation that I have to overcome. And one of the hardest things about D/s for my partners to accept has been the idea that obedience itself does not (or should not) reflect negatively on one's self-esteem.

I see two separate conversations taking place on this thread. The first is talking about valid expressions of submission and frankly that is not a conversation that interests me beyond the context of my own personal relationships.

The second is a literal attempt to answer the question: What is the difference between mainstream devotion and D/s-style submission?

In Saudi Arabia, or 1950's America, or devout modern America, or rural red state America, or indeed a host of other places, I can see why the lines might be blurry and this might be a complicated question necessitating vague and abstract comments such as "she feels owned".

But in a fundamentally egalitarian world like mine, it's really not all that hard to see the distinction between the two.

I live in a purple state surrounded by rural people. Women and men both feed cows, pick rocks, and I would not always bet on a man in a fight.

There's always two things: an anthropoligical norm

and how people are scattered all over the Venn diagram in relation to it. Always have been, always will be.

 

[Netzach]

OK, I have decided to be daring and put something out there that always strikes me as odd, to see if perhaps I am the only one, or just not getting something vitally important in the school of submission. Two of the most common things I see mentioned often as being seen as self proclaimed signs someone is submissive are (1) serving the Dominant/PYL first when serving out a meal etc.; and (2) never making a huge decision without talking it over with the PYL. Now I don't see anything wrong with either of these things, but I have never seen them as being proof someone is submissive.

I didn't go to a fancy finishing school for young ladies, but I was raised to always serve everyone before myself, and have found others do the same. Sometimes if I am busy with something else and dinner needs to be served, F might step in and do it, and though he is far from submissive, he will serve everyone else first. To me not only is it just good manners, but it also just makes practical common sense to serve others before yourself, otherwise your plate is sitting there all lonely like while you are still serving. I cannot recall one situation... work, social, family... where this has not been the case of the host or person serving to make sure everyone else is served first....and I never once thought 'sheeesh, another submissive, yay!!', I just thought it was normal. So am I missing something here and it means nearly the whole world is submissive because they serve others first?

As to the decision thing, once again I thought that if you were in a relationship (D/s or vanilla) and a big decision had to be made or a huge purchase, it was normal for you to discuss it with your partner or PYL first. To me, it just once again makes sense and ensures less chance of a big argument and avoids feelings which do everything to make the other person feel they are not in a relationship after all. Isn't it normal to discuss these things anyway? I know growing up my parents always discussed them first, often around the dinner table with input from us if welcomed, and then a decision was made as to what was best. When did it become a sure sign someone was a good submissive? I have no problem with the PYL making the decision themselves, without discussion if they choose, but for a submissive to feel it is sign of their submission to do so puzzles me as it is for me normal in any relationship to discuss it and then make a decision from there....even in ours we usually discuss the idea, especially now it is my duty to keep track of finances, but he makes the decision. I am feeling so like I have missed out on some important development which I always thought was standard behaviour...am I the only one?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/351820055_df11ba7f4e_t.jpg Catalina

I kind of like this post in some ways.

I have to think about it to do the polite thing at times, I tend to be pretty narcissistic. But I try to do the polite thing. When someone around me has a good idea I generally defer to it, rather than trying to co opt it or expand on it. I will pull chairs and take care of mine and generally try to make people comfortable. I've been confronted periodically by people's expectations in lifestyle settings of how a Dominant woman "should" be carrying herself, people will often remark on how approachable I am, how informal etc.

Frankly, I save the formalities and expectations for when I am interested in "going there." I don't really care who mistakes me for a submissive any longer, and I tend to get along much better with subs and switches than I do with other M and F doms.

Sometimes it's just a cigar.

In fact the more I'm in the scene/life the more it's JUST a freaking cigar.

 

[Etoile]

serving the Dominant/PYL first when serving out a meal etc.

I'm with you on this, Catalina. I was raised to always serve others first. That's just what the host does to guests. And even if it's just you and the dominant, I'd still find it the polite thing to do to serve the other first.

never making a huge decision without talking it over with the PYL.

Hell, I'd do that even if I wasn't submissive. Mostly because I have a natural tendency toward impulsivity, and I know I won't have thought of all the effects of whatever it is I want to do, buy, etc. I have gotten better about this, as in I don't necessarily ask before buying a cute shirt on sale for $12 at the store, but you better believe I consulted with both partners before I applied to go back to school.

 

[Kajira Callista]

OK, I have decided to be daring and put something out there that always strikes me as odd, to see if perhaps I am the only one, or just not getting something vitally important in the school of submission. Two of the most common things I see mentioned often as being seen as self proclaimed signs someone is submissive are (1) serving the Dominant/PYL first when serving out a meal etc.; and (2) never making a huge decision without talking it over with the PYL. Now I don't see anything wrong with either of these things, but I have never seen them as being proof someone is submissive.

I didn't go to a fancy finishing school for young ladies, but I was raised to always serve everyone before myself, and have found others do the same. Sometimes if I am busy with something else and dinner needs to be served, F might step in and do it, and though he is far from submissive, he will serve everyone else first. To me not only is it just good manners, but it also just makes practical common sense to serve others before yourself, otherwise your plate is sitting there all lonely like while you are still serving. I cannot recall one situation... work, social, family... where this has not been the case of the host or person serving to make sure everyone else is served first....and I never once thought 'sheeesh, another submissive, yay!!', I just thought it was normal. So am I missing something here and it means nearly the whole world is submissive because they serve others first?

As to the decision thing, once again I thought that if you were in a relationship (D/s or vanilla) and a big decision had to be made or a huge purchase, it was normal for you to discuss it with your partner or PYL first. To me, it just once again makes sense and ensures less chance of a big argument and avoids feelings which do everything to make the other person feel they are not in a relationship after all. Isn't it normal to discuss these things anyway? I know growing up my parents always discussed them first, often around the dinner table with input from us if welcomed, and then a decision was made as to what was best. When did it become a sure sign someone was a good submissive? I have no problem with the PYL making the decision themselves, without discussion if they choose, but for a submissive to feel it is sign of their submission to do so puzzles me as it is for me normal in any relationship to discuss it and then make a decision from there....even in ours we usually discuss the idea, especially now it is my duty to keep track of finances, but he makes the decision. I am feeling so like I have missed out on some important development which I always thought was standard behaviour...am I the only one?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/351820055_df11ba7f4e_t.jpg Catalina

I dunno, I am kind of simple...no long post...no debates.
It is not about serving dinner first, it is about how and why you do it. You do it because it pleases him or don't do it because it annoys.
It is not about decision making, it's knowing your opinion matters but the decision comes from Him.
Submission is more then doing what someone wants. It is about doing what someone needs...expects...orders you to do etc. without question (and within reason so no nonsense about what if he told you to kill him and eat him).
It is not about being a people pleaser or a "natural submissive". It is about the ability to devote yourself fully and completely to the person you BELONG to.
It's not about "Yes Sir" with a cute curtsy to follow then scurrying off to do as told. It is about "Yes Sir" that comes from inside... someplace deep inside, and when you say it you feel whole and right and where you belong.
It is about two people completing each other. In some way you are an extension of him....his left hand maybe... and by you being that for him you are both fulfilled.

 

[Netzach]

I dunno, I am kind of simple...no long post...no debates.
It is not about serving dinner first, it is about how and why you do it. You do it because it pleases him or don't do it because it annoys.
It is not about decision making, it's knowing your opinion matters but the decision comes from Him.
Submission is more then doing what someone wants. It is about doing what someone needs...expects...orders you to do etc. without question (and within reason so no nonsense about what if he told you to kill him and eat him).
It is not about being a people pleaser or a "natural submissive". It is about the ability to devote yourself fully and completely to the person you BELONG to.
It's not about "Yes Sir" with a cute curtsy to follow then scurrying off to do as told. It is about "Yes Sir" that comes from inside... someplace deep inside, and when you say it you feel whole and right and where you belong.
It is about two people completing each other. In some way you are an extension of him....his left hand maybe... and by you being that for him you are both fulfilled.

That's pretty organic in a lovely way. Frankly I find a certain logic in being willing to be bent by love to do what needs doing, whether you like to consider yourself in control or whether you like to consider yourself not in control.

 

[RJMasters]

It is about "Yes Sir" that comes from inside... someplace deep inside, and when you say it you feel whole and right and where you belong.
It is about two people completing each other. In some way you are an extension of him....his left hand maybe... and by you being that for him you are both fulfilled.

I really dig this type of mojo.

 

[liberatedslave]

I used to be very religous & the similarities between religous devotion & submission still tickle me. People cite decision making because it's a time when they really feel their submission. Giving up the right of decision making completely to a PYL means putting your destiny in their hands. KC's post really resonated with me. Like any religous zealot, it's not what you do in the name of your Lord & Master, it's the feeling of superlative love & completeness it brings & also an act of faith in the PYL.

 

[callinectes]

If you tell me that there are non-D/s wives in modern America who still include "obey" as part of their marriage vows, then of course I believe you. But this is not true in the blue state, liberal, urban world in which I live. Where I live, that hasn't been true for roughly 30 years.

I assure you this still happens in the South, particularly amongst Southern Baptists. Four of my six female cousins vowed to obey. I'm not saying they actually do it in every case, but they did vow to.

Several years ago the Southern Baptist Convention amended the Baptist Faith Message to include a passage stating that even though women are equal to men in the eyes of God, they have a duty to submit as their husband's servant and helpmeet. it created quite a stir resulting in some churches leaving the SBC while others embraced the concept and provided support to families.

 

[the_pet]

For me.... submission = obedience (even in the face of something i don't want to do or agree with), trust (that who i serve dominates with our best interests at heart), courage (to be led and not always try to take it back when it gets uncomfortable).

I am and was raised to be submissive, it's ingrained in my being. It what's makes me feel content, fulfilled, happy. I find no greater pleasure then making someone feel better, especially about themselves. Everyday i ask this question, "what can i do to make ________'s life easier today". I'm a firm believer in someone must lead and someone must follow. But i do not feel lesser than because i follow because i know how much i enrich his life and that's all i really want to do while i'm alive anyway. What better way to live your life than making others lives better.


pet

 

[BeachGurl2]

It is not about being a people pleaser or a "natural submissive". It is about the ability to devote yourself fully and completely to the person you BELONG to.

KC, you said it much more clearly than I could have. But that is the bottom line for me. My natural submissive tendencies have nothing to do with displaying my submission to him - as in the example of serving him first. I do that automatically to everyone, so I don't see that as an outward display of submission. There is a difference between being a submissive personality in general and submitting to one person. And I think that's the point of Cat's OP. At least, that's how I read it. I think you hit it perfectly.