When is a sub not a sub?

[catalina_francisco]

...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.

uh huh....and this is on whose authority? Oops, forgot, you are the only true authority and slave osg, just the universe forgot to inform the rest of the world so we could bow down on bended knee in worship of 'the One and only one'. I always thought it was your belief that self promotion and pride in oneself was unslavelike? Who is the one loudly proclaiming their 'true' submission around here? Think there is a big flashing arrow pointing in your direction babe..and of course, it is OK for you to apply the label submissive to yourself while not for others, because you are right, correct? If it is your belief it is not limited to sex (personally I agree, but don't see your actions reflecting your words), why do 99% of your posts telling of your experiences talk about being sexually used? Of course, with your definition that a true submissive just submits to anyone (as you have told us on many occasions is the reason you have to be guarded by another 24/7 to protect you from doing) simply because they have to submit out of need, then there really is no need for Dominants because there is no need for dominance to encourage or inspire submission....could even be another submissive if it could be anyone!! I'm sorry, but over the years I have just seen too many contradictions in your posts to take you seriously anymore, and yes, that is just my personal opinion, but one that took time to form and like you with your opinions, I am entitled to.

Catalina

 

[ownedsubgal]

uh huh....and this is on whose authority? Oops, forgot, you are the only true authority and slave osg, just the universe forgot to inform the rest of the world so we could bow down on bended knee in worship of 'the One and only one'. I always thought it was your belief that self promotion and pride in oneself was unslavelike? Who is the one loudly proclaiming their 'true' submission around here? Think there is a big flashing arrow pointing in your direction babe..and of course, it is OK for you to apply the label submissive to yourself while not for others, because you are right, correct? If it is your belief it is not limited to sex (personally I agree, but don't see your actions reflecting your words), why do 99% of your posts telling of your experiences talk about being sexually used? Of course, with your definition that a true submissive just submits to anyone (as you have told us on many occasions is the reason you have to be guarded by another 24/7 to protect you from doing) simply because they have to submit out of need, then there really is no need for Dominants because there is no need for dominance to encourage or inspire submission....could even be another submissive if it could be anyone!! I'm sorry, but over the years I have just seen too many contradictions in your posts to take you seriously anymore, and yes, that is just my personal opinion, but one that took time to form and like you with your opinions, I am entitled to.

Catalina

Catalina, perhaps you think you see contradictions in my posts because you just don't understand them. this (D/s) is all much simpler than you or most seem to make it out to be. and no, i'm not an "authority" on submission or Dominance, i just get tired of the PC "you are whatever you say you are" attitude that's currently popular on lifestyle websites.

i don't think i'm the perfect or model submissive or slave. and speaking of slavery, i didn't mention that in my post because it doesn't really relate to the topic...one does not need to be a submissive in order to be a slave. as for submissiveness, you seem to think i view it as some sort of high honor or calling and i do not...it's nothing to be bragged about because it's nothing one can control. not to mention the fact that often a great deal of tragedy and pain can come out of being a submissive, and it's certainly not the sort of life i would have wished for myself if i had had the choice. it was a very long, uphill struggle for me to finally accept my submissive nature, and even longer to embrace it and begin to see it as something of value. and this is why it irks me when those who know nothing of what it truly means to be submissive give themselves the label. and yes many, including you, may disagree with my beliefs and definitions, and i suppose i could be a bit more diplomatic when discussing these things, but i won't lie. i sincerely believe that some things are just black and white without 100 grey areas in-between. just my opinion, which rightfully holds no weight in your world.

as to why i often speak of sexual submission...well, this is at heart an erotic website, and also sexual submission is generally more easily understood and easier to explain to others than other forms of submission. tho if i recall, over the years there have been topics where things have gotten quite a bit deeper.

and no need for Dominants because there is no need for dominance to encourage or inspire submission?? huh?? personally i don't believe that submission is something that must be encouraged or inspired, any more than dominance must be. it's either there, or it's not. one is, or one isn't. a submissive does not need a Dominant in order to submit, however a submissive needs a Dominant in order to achieve that ultimate peace, fulfillment, and purpose. a submissive can indeed submit to just anyone, and there is indeed a place for that in the world...however only a Dominant will understand. we need each other, Dominants and submissives, because its only in each other that we are truly seen.

 

[Pure]

osg and catalina,

given that you two agree on a central point--that it's NOT the case that 'you are whatever you say (think) you are'-- it's a shame for it to get into a personal clash.

without trying to take a side, i think one of osg's formulations is ONE source of this dustup. but i'm not trying to blame one or the other, here.

osg 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).

the problem here is that ole' devil 'true.' also 'real.' it seems to have a value connotation. it's the apparent 'one up man ship' involved in saying 'I am 'true' or 'real' whatever.' i think we have to stick to descriptions: for instance, technically, anything not from a certain area of France is not "true" or "real" champagne. "Sherry" should come from Spain (Jerez). But when we say, "That's not real champagne" there may be NO difference as regards quality. A so called 'South African Sherry", actually not a 'true' sherry, may be a fine wine.

OK, the 'true' submissive submits wholly, as according to osg, by nature. What of someone one submits some of the time. Well, they are not a 'true submissive,' but their live is not shit. This is a bit like the snobbery of some dog owners: "He's not a pure collie" "He's not a real collie." OK, so he's a 'mix'. But 'mixed' dogs have lots of talents (the sniffers for the FBI and the police are often mixed).

Now this is not to say that there are no posers, to use osg's term.
But not every 50% submissive is a 'poser', which suggests making a false claim.

For example one key issue is submission in everything, vs. submission sexually. Is the 'sub' taking orders on every aspect of her existence? Osg want to say that's the 'true' sub. Maybe. But the 'sexual submissive' is a 'real' entity; it's a person with this taste in sexual encounters, but who's egalitarian, more or less, in other realms. I would not want to say the 'sexual submissive' is not 'real.'
S/he, granted, does not "really" submit *in every single area*. But i see no reason not to say "S/he really submits sexually."

My position is that labels do often have 'objective' meaning, not to be swept aside by simple assertion. In this i agree with catalina and osg. At the same time, we have to be careful with 'true', 'real' and 'pure'. When we use them, it must not always be to cast stones. A cashew, for instance, is not a 'true' nut. It's more a fruit. But in my book, it's a fine treat.

 

[ownedsubgal]

actually Pure i agree with you here. i think the champagne/sherry analogy was perfect. it's often assumed that when one uses the words "true" or "real", that they are placing a value on that particular thing (true or real is better or worth more, and not true or real worse or worth less), and that is not always so. i think there's nothing wrong with being a sexual submissive, and view it as a valid identity within the lifestyle. however often you have a situation where one labels themselves as simply "submissive", when truly they are a sexual submissive or something else altogether. i just think there needs to be more of an awareness and respect for the differences between (your adjective of choice here) submissive and just plain ol' submissive. it would make for much less confusion and heartache for uninformed newbies, and much less frustration and irritation for established lifestylers seeking to communicate or interact with those of likemind.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Respectfully Pure, sometimes there is much more involved than is seen on the forum alone, but for some it works to portray a one dimensional image as the 3D picture it is not.

Catalina

 

[velcroktty]

Everyone take in a deep clensing breath - thru the nose - one, 2, 3, 4,... exhale out of your mouth 1, 2, 3, 4, ... now close your eyes and again while chanting ...ommmmmm ommmmmmm ommmm breath in 1, 2, 3, ...

Now - light a smoke 'em if you got 'em, pop the top of a brew and savur a long cold swallow .... ommmm ommm

See how better things seem now....

Is a dicussion amoungst fellow strangers on a forum really worth getting our panties in such a bunch and having our feathers all ruffled and mussed PLUS now we all have to go out chase down that darn goat of ours that we let someone else go an untie on us....

We all wil never meet eye to eye on everything so perhaps to save our strength to fight the real battles of daily life, when we are on our free leisure time, maybe we need to just chill and try to relax and enjoy ourselves and have the good times that help us make it thru the struggles and battles we NEED to deal wth at work and when conducting business matters.

Today of all days isn't the theme that is most important. Those who live in the USA - today aren't we honoring that our nation has remained a free land - a country which allows it's citizens the inividual right to our own rights to have and enjoy each our own individual freedoms...?

If nothing else - can't we please all just agree to disagree and allow all others freedom to enjoy their own rights just like we feel we have the right to enjoy our own...

 

[FurryFury]

I'd say I have a tendency to be submissive by nature in most areas of my life. However because I am an independent entertainment contractor, a parent and live with a similarly submissive person, very few would just "know" that about me. Can I say no, yep, and I do.
Otherwise I would not be serving my family very well or able to run a business.

From the outside or even from a kids view, I am very in charge, organized and take no crap. I sometimes chafe at having to be that way. That is why sexual submission draws me so. It's when I am able to truly be what I am, instead of what I need to be to fulfill certain roles.

Fury

 

[catalina_francisco]

Now - light a smoke 'em if you got 'em, pop the top of a brew and savur a long cold swallow .... ommmm ommm

Sorry, I'm not into relying on chemical toxins to induce a false sense of well being and peace, much easier and real without it. As for knickers in a knot...mine aren't, but seems others are or perhaps it is simply a need to stir a pot that isn't bubbling to see what happens. History is indeed a valueable thing, but only when understood and based on reality and knowledge of what that history is. No Independence Day here....we are in Europe.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'd say I have a tendency to be submissive by nature in most areas of my life. However because I am an independent entertainment contractor, a parent and live with a similarly submissive person, very few would just "know" that about me. Can I say no, yep, and I do.
Otherwise I would not be serving my family very well or able to run a business.

From the outside or even from a kids view, I am very in charge, organized and take no crap. I sometimes chafe at having to be that way. That is why sexual submission draws me so. It's when I am able to truly be what I am, instead of what I need to be to fulfill certain roles.

Fury

LOL, life is a bitch sometimes, but as you and I know, sometimes it is better to have someone steering the boat, albeit a submissive, then to watch helplessly as it crashes over the falls and smashes on the rocks below. I am a big believer in strong submission, being able to be useful in a variety of ways as opposed to sitting and waiting for someone to feed the submissives needs as they deem appropriate and rightfully submissive. In my world, a submissive does what has to be done, serves in their ability to do so, and as you seem to do often, lays aside their own ideals and needs to serve those around you.

Catalina

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

I'd say I have a tendency to be submissive by nature in most areas of my life. However because I am an independent entertainment contractor, a parent and live with a similarly submissive person, very few would just "know" that about me. Can I say no, yep, and I do.
Otherwise I would not be serving my family very well or able to run a business.

From the outside or even from a kids view, I am very in charge, organized and take no crap. I sometimes chafe at having to be that way. That is why sexual submission draws me so. It's when I am able to truly be what I am, instead of what I need to be to fulfill certain roles.

Fury

Miss Fury those skills in my opinion don't make anyone 'less' submissive. They make them competent..........smiles

 

[catalina_francisco]

Miss Fury those skills in my opinion don't make anyone 'less' submissive. They make them competent..........smiles

LOL, is this a case of great minds think alike or fools seldom differ? I'm going with the first one of course as we Aussie girls are just naturally brill, right?!!

Catalina

 

[velcroktty]

Sorry, I'm not into relying on chemical toxins to induce a false sense of well being and peace, much easier and real without it....

..... No Independence Day here....we are in Europe.

Catalina

I'm not sure what the European troops smoked in their foxholes after a long duration of enemy combat, but I'm almost certain when US commanders shouted to their men to "Smoke 'em if you got 'em boys" he wasn't giving them permission to light up a joint and take a much needed break in the action.

And oops if you please forgive my blunder, The Green tea ice tea I'm drinking out of a bottle was not brewed but bottled. I confusingly mistook this as being brewed in similiar fashion as the way I brew my homemade ice tea.

History wasn't my strong suit. So let's leave it as my mistaken presumption which up until you've now pointed out my error, led me to believe that Europe was at some point declared an Independent country and thus I was wrong in thinking Europe would have an Independence Day.

Yes, you're right, I can clearly see now, how foolish one looks when jumping to false conclusions.

 

[Pure]

response to fury and rebecca,

Originally Posted by FurryFury
//I'd say I have a tendency to be submissive by nature in most areas of my life. However because I am an independent entertainment contractor, a parent and live with a similarly submissive person, very few would just "know" that about me. Can I say no, yep, and I do.
Otherwise I would not be serving my family very well or able to run a business.

From the outside or even from a kids view, I am very in charge, organized and take no crap. I sometimes chafe at having to be that way. That is why sexual submission draws me so. It's when I am able to truly be what I am, instead of what I need to be to fulfill certain roles.

Fury //

rebecca Miss Fury those skills in my opinion don't make anyone 'less' submissive. They make them competent..........smiles

P: as i read fury, she is describing sexual submission, or, if you like, being a 'sexual submissive,' as i sketched in my previous post (12:42 pm). this means as she says, that she does not appear to be submissive generally, i.e. on the job.

but i would not say, 'fury is competent,' IF it carries the (further) suggestion that someone else is not (someone less assertive on the job, for example). fury is simply submissive in one (key) area. (i'm not sure what rebecca is suggesting here, but it might be as above.)

osg says she is generally submissive, inside and outside the bedroom. presumably she is happy if the 'alphas', 'naturally dominant' persons take charge elsewhere, e.g. on the job. BUT it would be incorrect--if you [R] are suggesting it--to say that such an 'overall submissive' is not competent, or is less competent than someone like fury.

the 'overall submissive' is a splendid follower and back up person; she may be *very competent*, just not interested in being in charge. many technical people are like this, for example.

so, just as i proposed that osg is not to be taken as the only true submissive, i say that the 'sexual submissive' is NOT the only 'true' submissive either.

many subs claim great competence and leadership elsewhere, but let it go in the bedroom. (perhaps they overstate their leadership sometimes). i don't think that is the pinnacle of sub-hood: the most well adjusted sub, the one who only submits in the bedroom, but runs General Motors in her time on the job.

osg made a very good point here: our mainstream society is one that prizes 'toughness' and 'leadership,' --reaching its parody in GWB.
it is hard for a gentle or submissive nature to be recognized as worth anything. these folks are called 'soft' or 'squishy' or 'wish washy.'
among nations, a peaceable country like Canada is called, by the US, 'wimpy,' not aggressive enough, not warlike.

yet persons who submit, who carry out commands well, and 'by nature' however, are no less worthy that the leaders and strutters. we must be careful NOT to exalt--as the ONLY viable figure, or healthiest one-- the 'sexual submissive' who happens to be a 'captain of industry.'

i don't know rebecca's exact stand on this issue, so i'm not (necessarily) making a point against her views. i suspect fury would agree with the above. i'm simply addressing another source of misunderstanding.

 

[FurryFury]

Thanks Cat and Miss Rebecca!

Pure, actually I feel submissive in almost every area of my life but that doesn't serve well those that I feel I serve. (Sexually I take the lead when I feel he wants to or to give back as well.) A submissive parent who acts noticeably submissive to their kids would, in my opinion be quite a disastrous puzzle for children to deal with, for instance.

I have always seen myself as a helpmate to my husband. Anything he doesn't want to deal with, I do. Generally, I do and decisively, it well because someone has to.

I was a helper to my parents as well. It seemed I was the only "adult" there.

So, again, in my heart I'm pretty shy and very submissive but because I don't see that as my needed role with others I've adjusted and become what needs to be there.

Does this make me better, or worse, than anyone else? IMO, no, not really, it's just how I am. *shrugs*

My preference would be to be able to be more "me" in every area of my life. That just doesn't seem to be called for or needed by the others around me and that is what determines my behavoir, not what I want, but what they need.

As it happens I love my life. I've been very lucky. I'd like more "me" time and that means a LOT more D/s but it's not my role to decide these things, at least not as I see it. You see I am a well socialized woman raised in the Deep South. *nods*

Fury

 

[catalina_francisco]

Thanks Cat and Miss Rebecca!

Pure, actually I feel submissive in almost every area of my life but that doesn't serve well those that I feel I serve. (Sexually I take the lead when I feel he wants to or to give back as well.) A submissive parent who acts noticeably submissive to their kids would, in my opinion be quite a disastrous puzzle for children to deal with, for instance.

I have always seen myself as a helpmate to my husband. Anything he doesn't want to deal with, I do. Generally, I do and decisively, it well because someone has to.

I was a helper to my parents as well. It seemed I was the only "adult" there.

So, again, in my heart I'm pretty shy and very submissive but because I don't see that as my needed role with others I've adjusted and become what needs to be there.

Does this make me better, or worse, than anyone else? IMO, no, not really, it's just how I am. *shrugs*

My preference would be to be able to be more "me" in every area of my life. That just doesn't seem to be called for or needed by the others around me and that is what determines my behavoir, not what I want, but what they need.

As it happens I love my life. I've been very lucky. I'd like more "me" time and that means a LOT more D/s but it's not my role to decide these things, at least not as I see it. You see I am a well socialized woman raised in the Deep South. *nods*

Fury

Great post FF.....and it also is worth noting that some of us who are submissive by nature have learned there is a difference between being submissive and being a victim. IME, my soft and submissive nature made me a target from birth onward....it took many decades to learn there was an option which enabled me to be more useful to myself and those around me, but not any less submissive, just more productive and valueable. So yes, while I would prefer to take the back burner, if someone crosses my path these days and attempts to harm me or those I care about in any way, or something needs doing and no-one else is moving, I can and will say or do something about it because that is what is expected.

Catalina

 

[FurryFury]

Great post FF.....and it also is worth noting that some of us who are submissive by nature have learned there is a difference between being submissive and being a victim. IME, my soft and submissive nature made me a target from birth onward....it took many decades to learn there was an option which enabled me to be more useful to myself and those around me, but not any less submissive, just more productive and valueable. So yes, while I would prefer to take the back burner, if someone crosses my path these days and attempts to harm me or those I care about in any way, or something needs doing and no-one else is moving, I can and will say or do something about it because that is what is expected.

Catalina

Good point Catalina!

While I do feel submissive to my core, I am also a survivor and have learned that lesson too.

Fury

 

[catalina_francisco]

Good point Catalina!

While I do feel submissive to my core, I am also a survivor and have learned that lesson too.

Fury

It is one many forget about. There is a popularity I see in cyber land to jump up and claim to be too submissive to do xyz, even if asked by their Dom/me to fulfil the required task or learn a particular behaviour. I always think if one is 'too submissive' they would be only to happy to lay aside their own aversions to at the least attempt to fulfil the demands of the Dom/me as opposed to holding onto an image of how a submissive should at all times appear overtly submissive in all the traditional senses. I find covert submission goes that little deeper in that it does not cater to a popularised image but to an ideal of reality of service in whatever form required.

Add to that, as you say FF, we are survivors and it also moves into the area F has often pointed out to me that as his property it is my responsibility to ensure my survival, care of his property in the manner he demands, and service to fulfil his needs...to do otherwise by throwing up my hands in helpless abandon, or self declared submissiveness overruling his orders, would be disobeying him, abusing his authority and property, and possibly endangering that which he enjoys and denying him possible full and continued use of that submissive property in all the ways he requires to make his life more pleasant and enjoyable. While it is easy to create an image for those looking on from the outside, it becomes more difficult to actually deepen that image into a lived reality where submission does not always take the form of just laying back with legs spread or mouth open, or kneeling at his feet, or fetching cups of coffee, or all those lovely things which supposedly scream submission to the observing eye....sometimes it means standing up and getting on with it regardless of how submissive or non submissive it may appear to the uninvolved.

Catalina

 

[smartandsexy]

Very interesting thread, which has got me thinking.

If all three parties concerned in the arrangement described by Marquis are happy with the situation - all power to them. If they share a mutual understanding of the language used to negotiate the parameters of the relationships involved, surely that is what matters? I can understand the issue when someone is entering into a relationship or encounter with a new partner and they are at cross-purposes over their understandings of the terms used. Certainly, this could be problematic. However, I would imagine it is reasonably easily overcome in the course of discussing desires, expectations etc...it would seem wholly unsatisfactory and potentially dangerous to me to proceed on the basis of an assumed shared understanding of very broad and basic terms without delving further into what makes the individual tick.

So this poses the question of why it would concern anyone outside of the relationship as to the language used by those within it? Unless, of course, there is a status issue involved here with those that assume the title of 'sub'? It's a genuine question, so if I've missed something obvious, please enlighten me.

 

[lne_iii]

When it's ajar.

AAAHAHAHA!!1

Actually this was my first thought when I saw the thread title.



Anyway, free bump.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Very interesting thread, which has got me thinking.

If all three parties concerned in the arrangement described by Marquis are happy with the situation - all power to them. If they share a mutual understanding of the language used to negotiate the parameters of the relationships involved, surely that is what matters? I can understand the issue when someone is entering into a relationship or encounter with a new partner and they are at cross-purposes over their understandings of the terms used. Certainly, this could be problematic. However, I would imagine it is reasonably easily overcome in the course of discussing desires, expectations etc...it would seem wholly unsatisfactory and potentially dangerous to me to proceed on the basis of an assumed shared understanding of very broad and basic terms without delving further into what makes the individual tick.

So this poses the question of why it would concern anyone outside of the relationship as to the language used by those within it? Unless, of course, there is a status issue involved here with those that assume the title of 'sub'? It's a genuine question, so if I've missed something obvious, please enlighten me.

Good post...I think in general a lot of the discussion has broadened into a more disconnected question from the initial case presented. Submission is about what the Dominant in that relationship defines it to require, whether that fits the criteria another would place on it often differs, but as you say, if they are not involved in the initial relationship, their criteria is not the issue. I find very few relationships which are exactly the same as another, primarily because they involve individuals, but some feel there is only one true way (usually the way they conduct their D/s) and to move from that means it is not valid or real.

Catalina

 

[smartandsexy]

Good post...I think in general a lot of the discussion has broadened into a more disconnected question from the initial case presented. Submission is about what the Dominant in that relationship defines it to require, whether that fits the criteria another would place on it often differs, but as you say, if they are not involved in the initial relationship, their criteria is not the issue. I find very few relationships which are exactly the same as another, primarily because they involve individuals, but some feel there is only one true way (usually the way they conduct their D/s) and to move from that means it is not valid or real.

Catalina

Hell, how boring would life be if there were only one way of being? Personally, I revel in the richness, complexity and variety of sexuality. I don't go much for the real/unreal dichotomy. What is, is.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hell, how boring would life be if there were only one way of being? Personally, I revel in the richness, complexity and variety of sexuality. I don't go much for the real/unreal dichotomy. What is, is.

LOL, I can identify with that.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

catalina,

you said,

cat: as his property it is my responsibility to ensure my survival, care of his property in the manner he demands, and service to fulfil his needs...to do otherwise by throwing up my hands in helpless abandon, or self declared submissiveness overruling his orders, would be disobeying him, abusing his authority and property, and possibly endangering that which he enjoys and denying him possible full and continued use of that submissive property in all the ways he requires to make his life more pleasant and enjoyable. While it is easy to create an image for those looking on from the outside, it becomes more difficult to actually deepen that image into a lived reality where submission does not always take the form of just laying back with legs spread or mouth open, or kneeling at his feet, or fetching cups of coffee, or all those lovely things which supposedly scream submission to the observing eye....sometimes it means standing up and getting on with it regardless of how submissive or non submissive it may appear to the uninvolved.

P: I find these are excellent points cat! external 'signs' can be tricky to judge. you cannot judge a relationship by an apparent incident. let us say, one sees person A taking the temperature of person B. who is serving? Perhaps A is (really) the dom and wishes to protect his investment, his property. Perhaps A is the subordinate one, who's been assigned to monitor B's temperature, since B is rather busy.

To become an item of furniture *might* be required, but 'self care' equally might be. EVEN--it seems to me--to carry out a project: for example, you might be asked to seduce someone in order to bring them into the service of [or put them on exhibition to] the dominant person, i.e. to 'recruit'.

that requires skill and initiative, even if you're not exactly 'dominating' the object of your attention.

 

[catalina_francisco]

you said,

cat: as his property it is my responsibility to ensure my survival, care of his property in the manner he demands, and service to fulfil his needs...to do otherwise by throwing up my hands in helpless abandon, or self declared submissiveness overruling his orders, would be disobeying him, abusing his authority and property, and possibly endangering that which he enjoys and denying him possible full and continued use of that submissive property in all the ways he requires to make his life more pleasant and enjoyable. While it is easy to create an image for those looking on from the outside, it becomes more difficult to actually deepen that image into a lived reality where submission does not always take the form of just laying back with legs spread or mouth open, or kneeling at his feet, or fetching cups of coffee, or all those lovely things which supposedly scream submission to the observing eye....sometimes it means standing up and getting on with it regardless of how submissive or non submissive it may appear to the uninvolved.

P: I find these are excellent points cat! external 'signs' can be tricky to judge. you cannot judge a relationship by an apparent incident. let us say, one sees person A taking the temperature of person B. who is serving? Perhaps A is (really) the dom and wishes to protect his investment, his property. Perhaps A is the subordinate one, who's been assigned to monitor B's temperature, since B is rather busy.

To become an item of furniture *might* be required, but 'self care' equally might be. EVEN--it seems to me--to carry out a project: for example, you might be asked to seduce someone in order to bring them into the service of [or put them on exhibition to] the dominant person, i.e. to 'recruit'.

that requires skill and initiative, even if you're not exactly 'dominating' the object of your attention.

Very true, and it becomes a veritable minefield when direct in-the-moment and long standing orders conflict or raise possible areas of conflict. There are moments when it would be so much easier to be helpless and hopeless.

Catalina