What makes a true submissive?

[KimGordon67]

Hopefully that extends to Nickleback as well!

Unfortunately no - I just checked and they were here in the flesh 8 years ago.

 

[blksoldier]

forget everything I thought i knew about this subject

 

[Primalex]

I would probably fit the description of 'a strong personality and in independent woman' - and with the couple of relationships I've had with in-charge guys, I would say that's precisely what they relish in relation to my submission. For them - and I'm not saying this is the case for all in-charge guys at all, but it seemed to be the case for them - having someone strong-willed submit was more gratifying, because they knew I was doing it for them, not because submission is 'in my nature' (if that's the implication of a 'true' sub?). I understand other relationships have other dynamics, and I don't think any of them are any truer than any other, but by the same token, I don't think I could submit for someone who just expected it as a matter of course.

The problem I have with these statements is that they mix up activities and traits.

"I don't submit to anyone", therefore I'm not "submissive by nature".

Let's try to transfer this association "submissive trait - submitting to anyone" to your other traits.

Would you really write:
"I refuse to lead every rally against <whatever>, therefore I'm not a strong-willed person."?

No, of course not, the lack of actual correlation between these two becomes painfully obvious.

Even worse:
You are basically writing:
"Because I refuse to lead every rally against <whatever>, it is not in my nature to be a strong-willed person."

This is just...wrong.

 

[KimGordon67]

You're just splitting hairs. This was a perfectly reasonable comment in response to the OP and I think my intent is pretty clear. I don't think I am submissive by nature, as it's possible for me to have a entirely complete sexual relationship that doesn't involve submission. I guess it's IN my nature, but it's not my entire nature.

Quibbling over the precise definition of every single term everyone uses makes it extremely difficult to have an actual conversation

QUOTE=Primalex;86804654]The problem I have with these statements is that they mix up activities and traits.

"I don't submit to anyone", therefore I'm not "submissive by nature".

Let's try to transfer this association "submissive trait - submitting to anyone" to your other traits.

Would you really write:
"I refuse to lead every rally against <whatever>, therefore I'm not a strong-willed person."?

No, of course not, the lack of actual correlation between these two becomes painfully obvious.

Even worse:
You are basically writing:
"Because I refuse to lead every rally against <whatever>, it is not in my nature to be a strong-willed person."

This is just...wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

[Lunation]

I think of people saying "true sub" or "true daddy" as the same type of people who say "the true Christianity" or "the true Islam". Nobody has a monopoly on ideas/definitions.

Actually, the answer was Mormons.

Sorry. Mormons took it.

 

[DrDelirium]

Actually, the answer was Mormons.

Sorry. Mormons took it.

Yes, Mormons have mastered the art of being True Subs and True Daddies at the same time.

 

[Primalex]

You're just splitting hairs.

You are writing:"I'm not submissive by nature, it's in my nature." and I'm the one who is splitting hairs? Seriously?

I'm just saying that the way you split the hair regarding submission is something you wouldn't do with other traits.

 

[KimGordon67]

You are writing:"I'm not submissive by nature, it's in my nature." and I'm the one who is splitting hairs? Seriously?

I'm just saying that the way you split the hair regarding submission is something you wouldn't do with other traits.

Oh FFS. The 'in my nature' thing was a turn of phrase. Other people understood what I meant without it being a big deal. I guess I could rephrase it so I'm saying 'I'm not usually a submissive type of person, either in my everyday life, nor in sexual contexts - I'm generally seen as independent and assertive. Therefore, when I do submit to a man, they seem to gain a particular pleasure from knowing that it's something about them that's caused me to do so, rather than it being something I do for every person. Obviously being submissive is in my nature, because I submit, but it's not something I do easily or as a matter of course.'
And yes, I'd make the same context or interaction-based claims about other traits as well, both sexual and otherwise.
Is that better?

 

[DrDelirium]

No one would describe me as weak- minded, a hot mess, disorganized, silly or particularly dependent in my nature.

Leaving aside 'hot mess,' which is probably a pretty big barrier to submission, whatever the person may 'want,' I would suggest that having the traits you list might make it easier for someone to force their will on you, but that they really don't have anything to do with 'being submissive.'

 

[Blue]

 

[tinglebliss]

I think of people saying "true sub" or "true daddy" as the same type of people who say "the true Christianity" or "the true Islam". Nobody has a monopoly on ideas/definitions.

I used to hear this in conversations: are you a sub or dom? Then if I didn't act like their idea of a sub they said that I'm not a 'true sub'. I had it when I was first exploring and I just wanted to 'fit in'. A person can come from any walk of life, with any background or attitude, but still be a sub with the right person.

 

[cascadiabound]

Leaving aside 'hot mess,' which is probably a pretty big barrier to submission, whatever the person may 'want,' I would suggest that having the traits you list might make it easier for someone to force their will on you, but that they really don't have anything to do with 'being submissive.'

"Hot mess" was actually an affectionate nod towards cookie who has often described herself this way and I am pretty damn sure she is a fine submissive...just not the same stripe as me.

And the idea that anyone is ever gonna "force their will" on me kinda made me throw up in my mouth. Whatever do you actually mean? Please try again.

And this whole discussion about whether submission comes naturally or not? Well...I do know that I am most comfortable in my sexual skin when I am submitting. It does feel "natural" "perfect" "easy"
This is entirely separate from whatever cognitive dissonance I might have or the difference between my public leadership/ work roles and my private ones.

 

[DrDelirium]

"Hot mess" was actually...

Maybe try #injoke.

And the idea that anyone is ever gonna "force their will" on me kinda made me throw up in my mouth. Whatever do you actually mean? Please try again.

Yes, that's a sickening idea. I mean exactly what I said, that if you had those traits, which you say you don't, it might make it easier for someone to force their will on you, but they don't have anything to do with submissiveness.

 

[Farawyn]

Yes, that's a sickening idea. I mean exactly what I said, that if you had those traits, which you say you don't, it might make it easier for someone to force their will on you, but they don't have anything to do with submissiveness.

What traits does someone need to have someone's "will forced upon them"? Sounds very blame the victim. And yes, as Cassie said, sickening.

 

[DrDelirium]

What traits does someone need to have someone's "will forced upon them"? Sounds very blame the victim. And yes, as Cassie said, sickening.

Really? Whether victimizing someone is hard or easy does nothing to change the moral onus on the victimizer. If someone is 'highly dependent,' they are likely to be easier to victimize in certain ways. If they are blind, they might be easier to victimize in other ways. If they don't speak the local language, if they are trusting, if they are
fearful, if they think with their dick, they will be easier to victimize in various ways. Sheesh.

 

[cookiecat]

Hey kids! What's going on!? I wandered in to catch up on the latest round of word play and saw my name!

"Hot mess" was actually an affectionate nod towards cookie who has often described herself this way

I have described myself as disorganized and a hot mess. Not sure I'm super jazzed those terms were in the same sentence as weak minded, silly and dependent but, ok... I get the point.

I wanted to respond to Dr. Delirium's post:

Leaving aside 'hot mess,' which is probably a pretty big barrier to submission, whatever the person may 'want,' I would suggest that having the traits you list might make it easier for someone to force their will on you, but that they really don't have anything to do with 'being submissive.'

I mean exactly what I said, that if you had those traits, which you say you don't, it might make it easier for someone to force their will on you, but they don't have anything to do with submissiveness.

Ummm. No. Being a hot mess and a little disorganized are not a barriers at all to submission. Not in any way. None, nada. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure it correlates in any way to my "true" submissive nature. (Who am I kidding? I'm a total fake submissive!! Do stuff to me!! Dominate me!! But only when I want it!)

To suggest these adjectives (dependent, weak, silly, hot mess, disorganized) open the door to being more easily victimized feels off. I'm not quite sure I see being "highly dependent" in the same vein as blindness or the inability to speak a language but I do see you're striving hard to make a point. Perhaps that's a whole 'nother thread - victimization vs. submission.

There seems to be a predominating theory that if you're a strong willed, successful and independent woman, if it's not your nature to submit, once you do acquiesce your control to the One who motivates you to submit, it's somehow that much more delicious. Maybe it is. Here me roar before you hear me beg for your cock.

On the flip side, if a woman is NOT strong willed and independent, if she's not successful, a leader, and in charge that somehow she's opened the door for her submission to be called victimization. Really??

Nothing is ever that black and white. It's a good conversation to roll these ideas around. Figure out what works for you. Maybe you're a "true" bottom, not a submissive. I don't think it really matters. If the label you've slapped on yourself helps navigate these murky kinky waters, that's all good.

I'm not strong willed. I'm a hot mess, at times. Currently, I'm very dependent on my partner. I like to follow vs. lead. At times, on rare occasions, I enjoy playing the doormat. Or the footstool. I strive to be obedient within my D/s relationship. Barriers to submission? No. All day long, no. Open doors for victimization? Hell no.

It's late. It's been a long but happy day. Carry on.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Lunation]

Do you want to be sexually submissive?

If you checked yes, congrats, you're sexually submissive!

It doesn't matter if you're a middle aged businesswoman who wields the power of an entire corporation and eats executives for breakfast. It doesn't matter if you're a shy virgin. It doesn't matter if you're a burly, tattooed man with a beard.* You define yourself.


*if this describes you, you will have to PM me your submissive fantasy first for approval. I know, weird, right? But rules are rules!**


**actually don't, I'm taken, but this was amusing to me.

 

[cascadiabound]

Hey kids! What's going on!? I wandered in to catch up on the latest round of word play and saw my name!

I have described myself as disorganized and a hot mess. Not sure I'm super jazzed those terms were in the same sentence as weak minded, silly and dependent but, ok... I get the point.

So sorry cookie... never in a million years was I describing *you* in that list of terms, but I can't see the term "hot mess" without flashing on you using it. (#injoke) Please forgive me for possibly conflating any of the other things with you in the slightest by association.

cb

 

[DrDelirium]

Hey kids! What's going on!? I wandered in to catch up on the latest round of word play and saw my name!



I have described myself as disorganized and a hot mess. Not sure I'm super jazzed those terms were in the same sentence as weak minded, silly and dependent but, ok... I get the point.

I wanted to respond to Dr. Delirium's post:





Ummm. No. Being a hot mess and a little disorganized are not a barriers at all to submission. Not in any way. None, nada. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure it correlates in any way to my "true" submissive nature. (Who am I kidding? I'm a total fake submissive!! Do stuff to me!! Dominate me!! But only when I want it!)

To suggest these adjectives (dependent, weak, silly, hot mess, disorganized) open the door to being more easily victimized feels off. I'm not quite sure I see being "highly dependent" in the same vein as blindness or the inability to speak a language but I do see you're striving hard to make a point. Perhaps that's a whole 'nother thread - victimization vs. submission.

There seems to be a predominating theory that if you're a strong willed, successful and independent woman, if it's not your nature to submit, once you do acquiesce your control to the One who motivates you to submit, it's somehow that much more delicious. Maybe it is. Here me roar before you hear me beg for your cock.

On the flip side, if a woman is NOT strong willed and independent, if she's not successful, a leader, and in charge that somehow she's opened the door for her submission to be called victimization. Really??

Nothing is ever that black and white. It's a good conversation to roll these ideas around. Figure out what works for you. Maybe you're a "true" bottom, not a submissive. I don't think it really matters. If the label you've slapped on yourself helps navigate these murky kinky waters, that's all good.

I'm not strong willed. I'm a hot mess, at times. Currently, I'm very dependent on my partner. I like to follow vs. lead. At times, on rare occasions, I enjoy playing the doormat. Or the footstool. I strive to be obedient within my D/s relationship. Barriers to submission? No. All day long, no. Open doors for victimization? Hell no.

It's late. It's been a long but happy day. Carry on.

"Hot mess" would seem to mean as many different things to different people as 'submissive.' I, for one was not writing with you in mind as the Platonic Ideal of Hot Mess.

This discussion confirms my view that self-declared identity in the contemporary sense is a barrier to communication- and thought. Yod He Vau He brooks no argument. It worked for the God of the Israelites, it's working for submissives now.
The thread has reached the stage of arguing by (asserted) biography, rather a futile enterprise. Have a nice day. Be all that you can be. Never give up, never surrender. I'm outa here.

 

[Blue]

"Hot mess" would seem to mean as many different things to different people as 'submissive.' I, for one was not writing with you in mind as the Platonic Ideal of Hot Mess.

This discussion confirms my view that self-declared identity in the contemporary sense is a barrier to communication- and thought. Yod He Vau He brooks no argument. It worked for the God of the Israelites, it's working for submissives now.
The thread has reached the stage of arguing by (asserted) biography, rather a futile enterprise. Have a nice day. Be all that you can be. Never give up, never surrender. I'm outa here.

Huh?

The entire premise of this conversation is based in personal experience ('biography')...

 

[MeekMe]

This discussion goes the same way every. single. time.

About all we can agree on is that submissives submit and even then I'm sure someone would pop up to tell me to go fuck myself for having such an opinion.

Since there's no two people alike we really can't hammer down what makes someone "true." It always comes down to the individuals involved and what is "true" for them.

 

[cookiecat]

"Hot mess" would seem to mean as many different things to different people as 'submissive.

Right. Exactly. That's why the thread was started. That crazy thing called discussion. It's really cool to hear what you or anyone else here thinks, ponder it a bit, agree or disagree, argue a bit and then move along.

I, for one was not writing with you in mind as the Platonic Ideal of Hot Mess.

I didn't think you were. Just thought as a "self declared" hot mess, I'd chime in.

This discussion confirms my view that self-declared identity in the contemporary sense is a barrier to communication- and thought.

What? As opposed to self declared identity in the old fashioned sense? Do I have to wait for you or others to declare my identity?

Yod He Vau He brooks no argument. It worked for the God of the Israelites, it's working for submissives now.

I learned a new thing today. Awesome!

The thread has reached the stage of arguing by (asserted) biography, rather a futile enterprise.

Huh?

The entire premise of this conversation is based in personal experience ('biography')...

What Blue said. When was talking about our personal experiences a futile enterprise? Every post here is an opinion based on personal experience.

Have a nice day. Be all that you can be. Never give up, never surrender. I'm outa here.

Thanks!

 

[clistenovena]

It completely baffles me how it went from there to here, but kinda glad it did. Some real gems to be found.

Diplodocus stampede.

Were they true diplodocci?

Bahahaha!! God, I needed that. Thanks!

You knew it was coming...

https://youtu.be/j2r2nDhTzO4

I did!! I did know it was coming!!

Thankfully Poison seem to be unavailable in this country.

You missed a good one. Or dodged a bullet. Perspective.

And poor Nickelback. They always get crapped on. Bless 'em.

Do you want to be sexually submissive?
If you checked yes, congrats, you're sexually submissive!
It doesn't matter if you're a middle aged businesswoman who wields the power of an entire corporation and eats executives for breakfast. It doesn't matter if you're a shy virgin. It doesn't matter if you're a burly, tattooed man with a beard. You define yourself.
*if this describes you, you will have to PM me your submissive fantasy first for approval. I know, weird, right? But rules are rules!**
**actually don't, I'm taken, but this was amusing to me.

^^ The part in in bold (all of it, too). Yeppers. (And amusing as well.)

 

[Primalex]

You define yourself.

Well...no.

a) Defining yourself is pointless, because the only reason why you need a definition in the first place is to communicate, which is the only reason why you need words in the first place.

b) The reason why you can make up your own definition is because nobody is able to stop you. I can define myself to be a blue mold cheese. What are you going to do about it?

c) Making up your own definition is not a proof of correctness, see b). Not defining yourself does not mean that you are nothing.