When is a sub not a sub?
- Thread starter Marquis
- Start date
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
When is a sub not a sub?
I ascribe to Lance's definition... when she's a pillow princess. And there's lots of those around. Your friend kinda sounds like one. No offense intended to her but that's how it appears to me. Of course, all I can go by is what you've posted... I could be all wrong.
And probably am.
I ascribe to Lance's definition... when she's a pillow princess. And there's lots of those around. Your friend kinda sounds like one. No offense intended to her but that's how it appears to me. Of course, all I can go by is what you've posted... I could be all wrong.
And probably am.
alice_underneath
with malice toward none
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Posts
- 1,071
My working definitions are: the Dom is the one in charge, and the sub is the one who obeys.chris9 said:
If, in the process of obeying, the sub enjoys "the countless pleasures and orgasms he enjoys bestowing upon her," I fail to see why that disqualifies the relationship as D/s.
Similarly, if the BDSM checklist on which they have both agreed says 'yes' to floggers, whips, bondage, and wax...... but 'no' to penetration of any kind, I fail to see how this negates the D/s aspect either.
Which brings me to my original question. When is a boyfriend not a boyfriend?
When he's being used as a companion and social escort, by a woman whose true devotion is bestowed upon someone else.
serijules
just seri
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Posts
- 1,941
I don't think the question as stated is answer-able. What defines submission varies from person to person, both from the submissive and the dominant. Thus, what doesn't define submission also varies.
My Domme has three girls....all of us are submissive to her, but on EXTREMELY different levels. She expects much more out of me than she does the other two, and expects more out of one than she does the other. We are all different people with different types and levels of submission to give. Not better or worse, just different.
If the question was: When is YOUR submissive no longer a submissive in your eyes....that I think is a very easy to answer question for many, with no right or wrong answers. Trying to define that on such a broad scale by asking when, in general, a submissive is no longer a submissive is just idle speculating that will never have a satisfactory answer other than very personalized opinion.
My Domme has three girls....all of us are submissive to her, but on EXTREMELY different levels. She expects much more out of me than she does the other two, and expects more out of one than she does the other. We are all different people with different types and levels of submission to give. Not better or worse, just different.
If the question was: When is YOUR submissive no longer a submissive in your eyes....that I think is a very easy to answer question for many, with no right or wrong answers. Trying to define that on such a broad scale by asking when, in general, a submissive is no longer a submissive is just idle speculating that will never have a satisfactory answer other than very personalized opinion.
chris9
enjoying life
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2005
- Posts
- 3,657
I did not pick up mostly on your post, but on the original post by Marquis, and then your post. I just wonder why Marquis seems to be questioning her submission, but not his dominance. If he only pampers and spoils her, makes her a little princess, but never pushes her to obey him, it's as much his dominance at question as her submission.alice_underneath said:
Now, if she's a masochistic bottom, like some suggested, and he is the outlet for that side of her, then I don't see why she shouldn't have a boyfriend for egalitarian loving, too.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
complicated.
i don't think that thinking yourself a sub (or master) makes you one, any more than thinking you're a rock-and-roll star makes you one.
at first thought, i agree with chiclet (I think) in that she seems to say the woman is a bottom and a masochist. beachgurl says this explicitly.
the woman is at the command of neither the 'master' nor the 'boyfriend.' yet she gets off on the pain.
yet this pain is not the end of the story....
at second thought, 'fetish' comes to mind, and that seems to be what RJ is saying. the act, say, of being tied and whipped is enjoyed in the same way as being covered in saran wrap, to a fancier of that.
denying she submits to this 'master' in no way reflects poorly upon her--you don't become a better person the more you 'submit' in the sexual domain!
just my thoughts. at some point, labels matter little, and different ones may mean the same: as 'schizoid with depressive tendencies' and 'depressive with schizoid trends.' one needs LESS global , more nuanced descriptions.
marquis's question is a fine one.
i don't think that thinking yourself a sub (or master) makes you one, any more than thinking you're a rock-and-roll star makes you one.
at first thought, i agree with chiclet (I think) in that she seems to say the woman is a bottom and a masochist. beachgurl says this explicitly.
the woman is at the command of neither the 'master' nor the 'boyfriend.' yet she gets off on the pain.
yet this pain is not the end of the story....
at second thought, 'fetish' comes to mind, and that seems to be what RJ is saying. the act, say, of being tied and whipped is enjoyed in the same way as being covered in saran wrap, to a fancier of that.
denying she submits to this 'master' in no way reflects poorly upon her--you don't become a better person the more you 'submit' in the sexual domain!
just my thoughts. at some point, labels matter little, and different ones may mean the same: as 'schizoid with depressive tendencies' and 'depressive with schizoid trends.' one needs LESS global , more nuanced descriptions.
marquis's question is a fine one.
Last edited:
wrathofkublakhan
Virgin
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Posts
- 23
Wow - I'm new (hi all!) and it would appear I've stumbled on the Smart People's thread. Lucky me.
With all respect, I submit the following:
My two cents, innocent as they may be, is that there seems (in this thread) to be a lot of struggle with basic definition. And that should be a huge warning sign in that many of you are trying to re-define some set of rules to fit your own universe.
Continual re-defining means that the foundation is flawed or that you are focusing on the 'vehicle' rather than the 'content'.
This is all too common - examples might be easy to describe that we are enamored with new technology (the vehicle) rather than what is delivered (the content) be it payload on the space shuttle or grokking on the new steamboats and failing to see the trade has just been revolutionized.
Like the Catholic Church (beg pardon all), the focus on the vehicle has created huge elaborate constructs, pomp and ceremony, that ignores the content and so becomes merely a facade. One sees too the continual re-defining of the Catholic Church -- so we know it's inherently flawed.
Hence the power struggles of "who is what" as in "when is a sub not a sub".
If the sub has the opportunity to decide how far it will go, when to stop, what will be done then the sub has all the power and is truely dictating the relationship. The dom is merely serving. Sweet irony.
By trying to be sophisticated in this culture we end up relying on a set of rules that can be agreed upon, however those rules will always be years behind the actual trends. Much like our school system -- it meets the needs very well for the student of twenty years ago.
So, "when is a sub not a sub?" the answer might be: "let the script decide what the role may be".
Peace.
With all respect, I submit the following:
My two cents, innocent as they may be, is that there seems (in this thread) to be a lot of struggle with basic definition. And that should be a huge warning sign in that many of you are trying to re-define some set of rules to fit your own universe.
Continual re-defining means that the foundation is flawed or that you are focusing on the 'vehicle' rather than the 'content'.
This is all too common - examples might be easy to describe that we are enamored with new technology (the vehicle) rather than what is delivered (the content) be it payload on the space shuttle or grokking on the new steamboats and failing to see the trade has just been revolutionized.
Like the Catholic Church (beg pardon all), the focus on the vehicle has created huge elaborate constructs, pomp and ceremony, that ignores the content and so becomes merely a facade. One sees too the continual re-defining of the Catholic Church -- so we know it's inherently flawed.
Hence the power struggles of "who is what" as in "when is a sub not a sub".
If the sub has the opportunity to decide how far it will go, when to stop, what will be done then the sub has all the power and is truely dictating the relationship. The dom is merely serving. Sweet irony.
By trying to be sophisticated in this culture we end up relying on a set of rules that can be agreed upon, however those rules will always be years behind the actual trends. Much like our school system -- it meets the needs very well for the student of twenty years ago.
So, "when is a sub not a sub?" the answer might be: "let the script decide what the role may be".
Peace.
G
Guest
Guest
Marquis said:
Both of the above seem to appear with increasing frequency.... WHich is why, you will note, that I am tending to post to this board, with increasing INfrequency...
Along with a general increase in the prevelance of the "no matter what kind of silly, dangerous, or just plain stupid, crap someone may post...We must pat them on the head and tell them "of course it's ok..you just do whatever it is you want to do"..
(Though curiously, the above seems to have certain notable exceptions...periodicly.)
Hmmmm There was more to this post ...but at the moment it is liable to devolve severely..
SO... I am going to return to scanning the threads...A task that increasingly, puts me in mind of the sensation one gets, when chewing aluminum foil between the back teeth...
G
Guest
Guest
Oh...One last arrow off that bowstring....
"When is a sub not a sub?" ... Right about here.
I would be inclined to contest.. For the sake of an amusing argument..That in fact there is NO D/s relationship here...
That none exists between ANY of the three adults involved...
That the "Master" and "sub" are just two people indulging a mutual "kink"...
And that YES, there IS a difference..
"When is a sub not a sub?" ... Right about here.
I would be inclined to contest.. For the sake of an amusing argument..That in fact there is NO D/s relationship here...
That none exists between ANY of the three adults involved...
That the "Master" and "sub" are just two people indulging a mutual "kink"...
And that YES, there IS a difference..
VelvetDarkness
Polysyllable Whore x
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Posts
- 6,521
What's in a name?
I'll put my nose round the door and say hello. Hope nobody minds. I think that this conundrum is a considered one. It makes me ask how this woman ended up in this state of limbo between a boyfriend and a Master in the first place.
There's a piece of nursing wisdom that says:-
"Pain is whatever the patient says it is and exists when the patient says it does."
I can look at your initial post and say "This sub is not a sub." Just as I can look at a patient who seems comfortable and say "This person is not in pain."
But the more I read on Lit, the more I come to realise that "Submission/Domination is whatever the participating parties say it is and exists when they say it does."
I don't think there's a conclusive answer to this one.
Sorry if I'm being unhelpful.
Velvet
I'll put my nose round the door and say hello. Hope nobody minds. I think that this conundrum is a considered one. It makes me ask how this woman ended up in this state of limbo between a boyfriend and a Master in the first place.
There's a piece of nursing wisdom that says:-
"Pain is whatever the patient says it is and exists when the patient says it does."
I can look at your initial post and say "This sub is not a sub." Just as I can look at a patient who seems comfortable and say "This person is not in pain."
But the more I read on Lit, the more I come to realise that "Submission/Domination is whatever the participating parties say it is and exists when they say it does."
I don't think there's a conclusive answer to this one.
Sorry if I'm being unhelpful.
Velvet
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Ve
I see the point of your example, but pain, like 'worry' is a murky thing. I can see how a nurse *as a rule of thumb* will generally believe a report. I'd want that.
But I doubt you're saying that a person saying "I have a pain in my back" is ever lying or malingering.
A's dominating or commanding B is more an interpersonal thing, and I don't see why we should take either at one's word (though we should tolerate lots of differing lifestyles.)
If a person A says any any number of these things, we can question it (Even where B makes a corresponding statement in agreement):
"B is cooperating with me"
"B always acts in a dependable way."
"B always takes direction from me."
"B always acts as my loyal friend."
"B loves me more than anyone else in the world."
Tolerance of others' kinks does not mean they have the only say as to what their actions are called, IMHO.
"Pain is whatever the patient says it is and exists when the patient says it does."
I can look at your initial post and say "This sub is not a sub." Just as I can look at a patient who seems comfortable and say "This person is not in pain."
But the more I read on Lit, the more I come to realise that "Submission/Domination is whatever the participating parties say it is and exists when they say it does."
I see the point of your example, but pain, like 'worry' is a murky thing. I can see how a nurse *as a rule of thumb* will generally believe a report. I'd want that.
But I doubt you're saying that a person saying "I have a pain in my back" is ever lying or malingering.
A's dominating or commanding B is more an interpersonal thing, and I don't see why we should take either at one's word (though we should tolerate lots of differing lifestyles.)
If a person A says any any number of these things, we can question it (Even where B makes a corresponding statement in agreement):
"B is cooperating with me"
"B always acts in a dependable way."
"B always takes direction from me."
"B always acts as my loyal friend."
"B loves me more than anyone else in the world."
Tolerance of others' kinks does not mean they have the only say as to what their actions are called, IMHO.
"Pain is whatever the patient says it is and exists when the patient says it does."
I can look at your initial post and say "This sub is not a sub." Just as I can look at a patient who seems comfortable and say "This person is not in pain."
But the more I read on Lit, the more I come to realise that "Submission/Domination is whatever the participating parties say it is and exists when they say it does."
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Pure said:
A side effect of the PC culture we are supposed to uphold but which I find in reality is subjective to who, where, and when it is applied.
Being unPC to some degree, I still do not hold with the all encompassing thought that it is whatever the 2 people involved think it is as I am not a big supporter or lover of chaos. As boring as it may seem, there are general understandings applied to everything we do each day, and as such, taking it into one's head to begin saying you are a submissive submitting when in actual fact you are manipulating it to happen, or maybe even directing the whole process, or just possibly living in a regular vanilla relationship where you demonstrate love and respect in a specific way but fantasise and hunger to be more naughty, just do not speak submission to me...similarly, I do not believe you can call yourself a Dominant just because it appeals to you while you let your SO rule over you in every way, or call abuse D/s because you want to live in denial of being in an abusive relationship, or say you are Catholic without ever knowing much about the specifics and beliefs of that faith or ever practicing them etc, etc. It is not popular because the culture we are in promotes trying to please all the people all the time and not have any clear ideas or opinions about anything for fear of offending, not standing up for anything you believe in...works well for governments of today intent on doing as they please more so than what the people want...and so it goes on, creating a world of beige where you can do and be anything you want without doing anything or being accountable or authentic. Being, is a lot different to wanting to be and acting out a part which imitates the reality. LOL, and this was going to be a short 2 line post!! 
Catalina
Last edited:
saw_man1
Authentically Transparent
- Joined
- May 9, 2005
- Posts
- 1,008
EKVITKAR said:
I believe that you have hit the nail on the head as it relates to this specific relationship as outlined in the original post.
She has this guy for this and that guy for that and has successfully compartmentalized her love/sex life.
As to the question as in a broader sense; dammed if I know. Being a neophyte myself, and not a particularly articulate one, I’m afraid I am not much help with the big picture issues being presented is this thread.
wrathofkublakhan
Virgin
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Posts
- 23
(scrolls up to re-read catalina_francisco's posting)
wow, summed up nicely! that's what I meant to say.....hehe
wow, summed up nicely! that's what I meant to say.....hehe
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
well put, Catalina,
I believe it's the same sort of thing I was trying to say. Our PC culture is overdone in tolerance and sensitivity, in many areas. (And nasty and intolerant in others).
While I don't think Ayn Rand or the Pope have the objective truth about what morals people should have, I think there are relatively objective judgements regarding people--give or take. Some of these ideas make it into the legal code, i.e., what is it to intentionally, 'with malice aforethought', kill someone--i.e., first degree murder. We distinguish that from 'heat of the moment' killing. There are lots of gray areas, but juries and judges look at evidence, *not just the opinion of the defendant* (real or shammed). So a prosecutor says, "If you were just going to the victims house to discuss his affair with your wife, why did you take a gun with you?" "Didn't you purchase that gun the day before?"
I think the words dominate and submit are very fuzzy, and even fuzzzier are the terms dom and sub. But if we stick to ordinary words less mucked up ones [we do better], such as "who's in charge?" "who's commanding whom" "whose desires--if either--are being imposed." Or course the answer may be 'neither' [is commanding, e.g.].
Some questions, of course, have the answer, "both", such as cases of agreed scenes, the question being "Who controls whom?"
I believe these have somewhat objective answers, just as the question, "Do you have a trustworthy attorney?" Even where the client says "Yes, certainly," if I show him the bank balances and the evidence of malfeasance, the client will come to agree with me "No, he is not."
I believe it's the same sort of thing I was trying to say. Our PC culture is overdone in tolerance and sensitivity, in many areas. (And nasty and intolerant in others).
While I don't think Ayn Rand or the Pope have the objective truth about what morals people should have, I think there are relatively objective judgements regarding people--give or take. Some of these ideas make it into the legal code, i.e., what is it to intentionally, 'with malice aforethought', kill someone--i.e., first degree murder. We distinguish that from 'heat of the moment' killing. There are lots of gray areas, but juries and judges look at evidence, *not just the opinion of the defendant* (real or shammed). So a prosecutor says, "If you were just going to the victims house to discuss his affair with your wife, why did you take a gun with you?" "Didn't you purchase that gun the day before?"
I think the words dominate and submit are very fuzzy, and even fuzzzier are the terms dom and sub. But if we stick to ordinary words less mucked up ones [we do better], such as "who's in charge?" "who's commanding whom" "whose desires--if either--are being imposed." Or course the answer may be 'neither' [is commanding, e.g.].
Some questions, of course, have the answer, "both", such as cases of agreed scenes, the question being "Who controls whom?"
I believe these have somewhat objective answers, just as the question, "Do you have a trustworthy attorney?" Even where the client says "Yes, certainly," if I show him the bank balances and the evidence of malfeasance, the client will come to agree with me "No, he is not."
Last edited:
VelvetDarkness
Polysyllable Whore x
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Posts
- 6,521
catalina_francisco said:Being, is a lot different to wanting to be and acting out a part which imitates the reality. LOL, and this was going to be a short 2 line post!!
Catalina
I've been thinking about this thread and on reflection I'm inclined to agree with Catalina. While this woman believes she is acting submissively, she remains in total control of the situation. Her needs are met and those of the 'Dominant' partner do not even enter the equation.
This sub therefore, is not a sub. Her submission is fake, a pretence.
Like a guy who complains of crippling backache to get a week off work - and then spends it decorating his house. He's putting it on to get what he wants.
So is this woman.
That's my tuppence anyway
Velvet
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
She's a bottom.
Unless there's info you're not privy to.
Why doesn't she say she's not a sub and is a bottom?
listen to the responses here. Clearly if you're a bottom you're a "pillow princess" (not pickin' on just you ADR, it's just a clear example of what I mean) and it's not as good a thing to be.
The vast majority of lifestyle slaves, submissives, etc. are in fact complicated versions of this bottom if you really read between the lines. Most Doms/Tops I know are completely ruled and whipped by the giant network of needs their slaves have. To me, ownership is DEFINED by the willingness and readiness to give up ones property -- something a small handful of all powerful masters have ever considered doing. I don't have to inflict my definitions on the world, but I know what's a non-slave to me.
That's just me.
I'd say she's a bottom whose BF is probably vanilla or sub and she's getting her needs met,and it's pretty beyond critique in and of itself. Is the BF being used? I leave it to the parties involved to figure it out, maybe he's blowing the Dom in private for all we know and it's not my business.
But why would someone feel the pressure-need to mis-identify?
Unless there's info you're not privy to.
Why doesn't she say she's not a sub and is a bottom?
listen to the responses here. Clearly if you're a bottom you're a "pillow princess" (not pickin' on just you ADR, it's just a clear example of what I mean) and it's not as good a thing to be.
The vast majority of lifestyle slaves, submissives, etc. are in fact complicated versions of this bottom if you really read between the lines. Most Doms/Tops I know are completely ruled and whipped by the giant network of needs their slaves have. To me, ownership is DEFINED by the willingness and readiness to give up ones property -- something a small handful of all powerful masters have ever considered doing. I don't have to inflict my definitions on the world, but I know what's a non-slave to me.
That's just me.
I'd say she's a bottom whose BF is probably vanilla or sub and she's getting her needs met,and it's pretty beyond critique in and of itself. Is the BF being used? I leave it to the parties involved to figure it out, maybe he's blowing the Dom in private for all we know and it's not my business.
But why would someone feel the pressure-need to mis-identify?
Last edited:
AngelicAssassin
Something Wicked
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Posts
- 10,945
When it's Russian, has an accident, sinks to the bottom, and the admiralty forces international efforts better equipped to deal with deep submersive rescue work to steam in circles just off site until way after any hope of saving possible survivors ...
OR
When it's US, causes an accident by rocketing to the suface for the benefit of VIP junketeers on board, sinks a Japanese boat, then goes through ridiculous life threatening procedures to the salvage teams recovering the dead in accordance with the requests of families by a governement that refuses to acknowledge the Rape of Nanking.
Fuck the subs, and leave swimming/diving (intended and not) to those that know how.
OR
When it's US, causes an accident by rocketing to the suface for the benefit of VIP junketeers on board, sinks a Japanese boat, then goes through ridiculous life threatening procedures to the salvage teams recovering the dead in accordance with the requests of families by a governement that refuses to acknowledge the Rape of Nanking.
Fuck the subs, and leave swimming/diving (intended and not) to those that know how.
Softouch911
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2005
- Posts
- 996
Given the "facts" as Marquis perceives them, and as most of us read them, the answer may be that a sub is submissive when she puts the needs of the dominant before her own. In this case, as several have pointed out, she is not submitting to either her top or her boyfriend.
ST
ST
ammre
ani and griselda's child
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2001
- Posts
- 1,168
well he's giving her orgasms and all that fun stuff.... but what if they did have a sexual relationship and she gave him orgasms? I dunno but i find there to be something erotically powerful about being able to cause someone so much pleasure they can't control themselves, yet a lot of people consider sucking on a peepee to be an act more submissive in nature.
I think it's just an issue of semantics and lables.
I think it's just an issue of semantics and lables.
velcroktty
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Posts
- 2,012
Like you said Marquis - no offense to any and all -- that said --
In so many words, you say he's one of the best of his kind... and You and He are of the same basics aren't you?
ok you say he is very good yet you don't follow his example. is he good because he does how he does and thats what makes him good?
....She gets ... basically played with in every way possible... her duty to ... is to enjoy the countless pleasures and orgasms he enjoys bestowing upon her?
....Now, posturing aside, who is really serving who here?
and so ok -- explain to me who isn't being served here?
......This is a girl who does not like to give head, does not like anal and considers almost any form of pleasing her primary partner to be honorary or punishment.
if i may steal your line.......COME ON
.... but I hear her talking about being a sub and I can't help but think something is wrong with this picture.
you're listening words - you aren't hearing their meaning....
....I'm a mean, harsh, selfish Dom, who couldn't possibly comprehend that subs deserve to be played with like little bunny rabbits and never expected to put out a damn thing...
oh but she is putting out -- she's putting all of herself all out trust in this Master...
To answer the question: a sub is not a sub when she is without a worthy Master...
vk
In so many words, you say he's one of the best of his kind... and You and He are of the same basics aren't you?
ok you say he is very good yet you don't follow his example. is he good because he does how he does and thats what makes him good?
....She gets ... basically played with in every way possible... her duty to ... is to enjoy the countless pleasures and orgasms he enjoys bestowing upon her?
....Now, posturing aside, who is really serving who here?
and so ok -- explain to me who isn't being served here?
......This is a girl who does not like to give head, does not like anal and considers almost any form of pleasing her primary partner to be honorary or punishment.
if i may steal your line.......COME ON
.... but I hear her talking about being a sub and I can't help but think something is wrong with this picture.
you're listening words - you aren't hearing their meaning....
....I'm a mean, harsh, selfish Dom, who couldn't possibly comprehend that subs deserve to be played with like little bunny rabbits and never expected to put out a damn thing...
oh but she is putting out -- she's putting all of herself all out trust in this Master...
To answer the question: a sub is not a sub when she is without a worthy Master...
vk
Last edited:
ownedsubgal
lost little girl
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2003
- Posts
- 2,996
...haven't read all the responses, so i'm probably repeating someone. but i would say a submissive is always a submissive. however many (and i mean MANY) who give themselves the label, couldn't be further from the definition of submissive. they have a list of demands a mile long, they could give a darn about pleasing anyone unless they can somehow benefit from it, they say no as easily as they blink their eyes. not a submissive by any stretch of the imagination. however for some reason the label appeals to them.
a submissive has an overwhelming need and drive to serve and please others...it is not about what they want to do, but what they MUST do. being submissive is simply their nature, something they cannot help or control. it is not something limited to sex or to a particular relationship with a particular person. it's who they are...period. a submissive submits because they can do nothing else.
those who give themselves false labels of Dominant or submissive, like Marquis' friend, trouble me a great deal, because they often have a louder and more widely broadcasted voice than those of us who are real (yes i know that's a curse word on the internet, but it's a fact that some folks in this lifestyle are fakes or ignorant posers, as opposed to being true or real). people new to the lifestyle and people outside of the lifestyle looking in get the wrong impression as to what this is all about. also, trying to interact with others of likemind can be difficult when you have to sift thru 2 dozen posers to get to 1 or 2 people who actually are truly Dominant or submissive.
a submissive has an overwhelming need and drive to serve and please others...it is not about what they want to do, but what they MUST do. being submissive is simply their nature, something they cannot help or control. it is not something limited to sex or to a particular relationship with a particular person. it's who they are...period. a submissive submits because they can do nothing else.
those who give themselves false labels of Dominant or submissive, like Marquis' friend, trouble me a great deal, because they often have a louder and more widely broadcasted voice than those of us who are real (yes i know that's a curse word on the internet, but it's a fact that some folks in this lifestyle are fakes or ignorant posers, as opposed to being true or real). people new to the lifestyle and people outside of the lifestyle looking in get the wrong impression as to what this is all about. also, trying to interact with others of likemind can be difficult when you have to sift thru 2 dozen posers to get to 1 or 2 people who actually are truly Dominant or submissive.
