What makes a true submissive?

[cascadiabound]

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.

While your logic is not flawed, I do not see how this post furthers discussion on this thread. In fact, it seems to have stalled it out entirely. Was that your intent, Primalex?

Semantics do tend to become a bit circular when rigorous logic is applied, but does that help us to communicate? I do not believe so.

Lunation's post rather humorously pointed to the essential component to what is necessary in order to begin to view oneself as submissive (self identify/ define) - "Do you want to be sexually submissive?"

This seems to me to be perhaps the first box at the top of the ven diagram in which one might sort out the variables of submission that apply.

Do you want to be a blue mold cheese, Primalex? more power to you.

As to me... I am not sure I particularly want to be sexually submissive. I am not at all sure I particularly want to be a lot of things I actually am - like it or not. Some things are malleable. I choose to not be an unpleasant, unhappy, disagreeable person -- I choose to not take my shit out on others. I choose to go to work even though it might be more pleasant not to. etc. Other things are not malleable. I am the age I am. I have the skin color I have. I have the family of origin I have.

Until relatively recently... I did not understand myself as a woman who wanted to be sexually submissive. In fact, if you had asked me if that described me I would have adamantly denied it.

However... it turns out that if I am truly honest with myself and I step into that ven diagram that starts with the question:

"Do you want to be sexually submissive?"

and I answer it "YES" -
all other things click into place like the tumblers of a combination lock. And all kinds of things make sense that do not otherwise.

Does this make me a true submissive? I will leave this to others to determine. Not that I care what they think.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[aFairy]

Define "True submissive"
( ... or
define "normal" )

It's all about perspective, isn't it?

and I'd giggle loudly if someone would tell me I am not a "true sub".. I'd even roll my eyes with it, and probably stick out my tongue.
It's not for anyone to decide if I am a "true sub" or not.
and being submissive has nothing to do with the status you carry in vanilla, professional life.

My purpose is the purpose my Master gives me.
and all i want is to show him i am worthy, to execute it with passion and full dedication. to make Him proud.

 

[barefootgirl69]

Define "True submissive"
( ... or
define "normal" )

It's all about perspective, isn't it?

and I'd giggle loudly if someone would tell me I am not a "true sub".. I'd even roll my eyes with it, and probably stick out my tongue.
It's not for anyone to decide if I am a "true sub" or not.
and being submissive has nothing to do with the status you carry in vanilla, professional life.

My purpose is the purpose my Master gives me.
and all i want is to show him i am worthy, to execute it with passion and full dedication. to make Him proud.

Well said!

 

[SissySalina]

true-sub

Define "True submissive"
( ... or
define "normal" )

It's all about perspective, isn't it?

and I'd giggle loudly if someone would tell me I am not a "true sub".. I'd even roll my eyes with it, and probably stick out my tongue.
It's not for anyone to decide if I am a "true sub" or not.
and being submissive has nothing to do with the status you carry in vanilla, professional life.

My purpose is the purpose my Master gives me.
and all i want is to show him i am worthy, to execute it with passion and full dedication. to make Him proud.

sissy thinks someone has finally got it right.

 

[Mrtenant]

I actually have used cheese and viening as a descriptive analogy. I love cheese, what can I say?

I cannot remember what the hell I was talking about but it was in the last few months. Maybe weeks.

It could be worse, I could have used Sage derby cheese.

If I had to be a cheese I'd like to be a creamy white goat cheese rolled in black ash. Just because. And I love ash. Or a really good burrata: Something great made from left overs! That sounds fun . In reality I probably have a bit of a hard waxxcoatinv and am rather better aged than either of those options. I do love fresh cheese though.. there is too much casu marzu in the world.

Yep, I'm gonna say it.....


Pretty cheesy there, Elle

 

[Mrtenant]

Duplicate....geebus

 

[purplerosecrab]

being submissive has nothing to do with the status you carry in vanilla, professional life.

I completely agree with this. There is so much time spent (and, in my opinion, wasted) trying to reconcile the strong, independent woman who also submits sexually. I've seen many justifications, including in this thread: I'm a pyl, but not a doormat, no one walks over me; I'm independent and strong and my submissiveness is earned and prized because I don't give it away easily; because I'm so powerful and badass in my everyday life, I just have to give my power away to someone in the bedroom; or I could never be a pyl because I'm just too rebellious. Every one of these explanations is valid to someone, but to be honest the question of whether or not a pyl can have a strong personality in the everyday world is just not that interesting to me.

Anyone with a modicum of complexity and nuance about them would understand that people can be many things, often disparate and contradictory things, all at the same time. As a pyl, I'm interested in learning about my own expressions of strength that may not look like strength to others, such as yielding, opening, allowing, and surrendering, all with conscious intention and joy. I would argue that the only true test of strength is the ability we have to truly be ourselves, regardless of the pressures or opinions of others.

However... it turns out that if I am truly honest with myself and I step into that ven diagram that starts with the question:

"Do you want to be sexually submissive?"

and I answer it "YES" -
all other things click into place like the tumblers of a combination lock. And all kinds of things make sense that do not otherwise.

Does this make me a true submissive? I will leave this to others to determine. Not that I care what they think.

I agree with this as well. Semantics and logic aside, all identities exist at the intersections of self and other, self and culture, self and surroundings. When something feels right, it feels right, and every single one of us has to negotiate what we know to be true about ourselves with what others assume about us.

 

[Primalex]

While your logic is not flawed, I do not see how this post furthers discussion on this thread. In fact, it seems to have stalled it out entirely. Was that your intent, Primalex?

This is an interesting statement, as it raises the question whether you believe that Nickelback and diplodocci did further the discussion.

(As a side note, the combination of "in fact" and "it seems" is terrible. Arbitrary suppositions do not become more credible by adding "in fact".)

Semantics do tend to become a bit circular when rigorous logic is applied, but does that help us to communicate? I do not believe so.

I do not believe that arbitrariness helps us to communicate.

Lunation's post rather humorously pointed to the essential component to what is necessary in order to begin to view oneself as submissive (self identify/ define) - "Do you want to be sexually submissive?"

This seems to me to be perhaps the first box at the top of the ven diagram in which one might sort out the variables of submission that apply.

If you believe that sexual submission is something that can be pursued and achieved like a career, then this would be a helpful component in achieving the goal. Yes.

I already see differences in "Are you an astronaut?", "Do you see yourself as an astronaut?" and "Do/did you want to become an astronaut?" though.

And although "Yes to all" and "No to all" will be valid for 99.many9% of the humans in this case, any combination of these "Yes" and "No" is actually valid, especially when it's not about astronauts.

Do you want to be a blue mold cheese, Primalex? more power to you.

Thank you. What constitutes blue mold cheese and whether it is political correct to empower someone to pursue an unobtainable goal are two different matters though.

"Do you want to be sexually submissive?" and I answer it "YES" -
all other things click into place like the tumblers of a combination lock. And all kinds of things make sense that do not otherwise.

And if you had said "NO"? Then the combination lock would still have the same combination.



Now, to answer your very first question - the wrong use of terms has been and will always be one of my pet peeves:
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=81478308

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=81748132

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=25678503

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=59676983

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=42520769

...

And I found the insinuation of ulterior motives very offensive. And I mention this because I've never been ambiguous how I feel or how I feel about other posters or why I do the things I do - this was the case the last 10 years and this is not going to change the next 10 years.

 

[Primalex]

It's all about perspective, isn't it?

A perspective affects and changes how we perceive things, not how things are.

 

[aFairy]

A perspective affects and changes how we perceive things, not how things are.

"how things are"

so, define what makes a true sub
because I must've missed the memo about the fact that there's a guideline

imo, there is not one true definition.
~ beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Primalex]

"how things are"

so, define what makes a true sub
because I must've missed the memo about the fact that there's a guideline

imo, there is not one true definition.
~ beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

You missed the memo? You missed the whole fucking thread.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes, what one does in one's 'everyday' life isn't necessarily related at all to one's sexual life - but the point I was making originally was really as much about the other person in the equation as myself. For them (and obviously this is only true of a specific sub-set of the in-charge guys), knowing that submission isn't something that necessarily comes 'easily' to me gives the dynamic an extra frisson that I suspect wouldn't be there for them with someone who was submissive in all their sexual relationships.

I think you're right, that yielding is a form of strength in itself - but I'm also interested in how the other person experiences that - what they get out of having me yield to them. And, for the guys I'm attracted to, there's something that they get out of ... I can't think of the right word - the 'struggle' isn't quite right, but there's something about the tension between my usually fairly stroppy nature and the yielding that works for them.

I completely agree with this. There is so much time spent (and, in my opinion, wasted) trying to reconcile the strong, independent woman who also submits sexually. I've seen many justifications, including in this thread: I'm a pyl, but not a doormat, no one walks over me; I'm independent and strong and my submissiveness is earned and prized because I don't give it away easily; because I'm so powerful and badass in my everyday life, I just have to give my power away to someone in the bedroom; or I could never be a pyl because I'm just too rebellious. Every one of these explanations is valid to someone, but to be honest the question of whether or not a pyl can have a strong personality in the everyday world is just not that interesting to me.

Anyone with a modicum of complexity and nuance about them would understand that people can be many things, often disparate and contradictory things, all at the same time. As a pyl, I'm interested in learning about my own expressions of strength that may not look like strength to others, such as yielding, opening, allowing, and surrendering, all with conscious intention and joy. I would argue that the only true test of strength is the ability we have to truly be ourselves, regardless of the pressures or opinions of others.



I agree with this as well. Semantics and logic aside, all identities exist at the intersections of self and other, self and culture, self and surroundings. When something feels right, it feels right, and every single one of us has to negotiate what we know to be true about ourselves with what others assume about us.

 

[Blue]

This just seems to come down to whether you want an all-inclusive and so necessarily meaningless label that serves no categorical purpose or individual nebulous pseudo-concepts that nobody is ever going to definitively agree on.

For semantic efficiency, I'll stick with the nebulous pseudo-concept.

 

[deehere]

I actually have used cheese and viening as a descriptive analogy. I love cheese, what can I say?

I cannot remember what the hell I was talking about but it was in the last few months. Maybe weeks.

It could be worse, I could have used Sage derby cheese.

If I had to be a cheese I'd like to be a creamy white goat cheese rolled in black ash. Just because. And I love ash. Or a really good burrata: Something great made from left overs! That sounds fun . In reality I probably have a bit of a hard waxxcoatinv and am rather better aged than either of those options. I do love fresh cheese though.. there is too much casu marzu in the world.

Do NOT summon it!! Gakk! *whispering* only two times more and we're toast! *It* that must not be named!

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[purplerosecrab]

Yes, what one does in one's 'everyday' life isn't necessarily related at all to one's sexual life - but the point I was making originally was really as much about the other person in the equation as myself. For them (and obviously this is only true of a specific sub-set of the in-charge guys), knowing that submission isn't something that necessarily comes 'easily' to me gives the dynamic an extra frisson that I suspect wouldn't be there for them with someone who was submissive in all their sexual relationships.

I think you're right, that yielding is a form of strength in itself - but I'm also interested in how the other person experiences that - what they get out of having me yield to them. And, for the guys I'm attracted to, there's something that they get out of ... I can't think of the right word - the 'struggle' isn't quite right, but there's something about the tension between my usually fairly stroppy nature and the yielding that works for them.

I'm thinking about my own in-charge guy, who asked me after a few vanilla sex escapades if I had any submissive tendencies. I had been exploring submission for years, but it wasn't the main reason he and I first got together. I don't know exactly what he saw or felt, but it was enough for him to suggest that we try a more formal D/s arrangement. It worked for us. It's a year later, and I don't think he (or anyone else, for that matter) would call me strong-willed or say I have a strong personality. He was enticed and attracted by something in me and looking back I'm not quite certain what it was. His way of being in charge and my way of not being so happened to complement each other well.

So I would agree that different PYLs are attracted to different things. It's quite possible that my partner wouldn't be interested in someone whose powerful personality rivals his own. Other PYLs might find that tension exciting, arousing, and riveting. It's all about finding those complements and matches, and beyond that the semantics and labels don't really interest me.

 

[KimGordon67]

Ha - interestingly when I first started talking online with the guy I'm seeing now, he mentioned having been in a 'dominant' role in previous relationships, but only because that's what the other person wanted - while he was happy to make them happy, it wasn't something he really wanted in a relationship. We talked a bit about my prior relationship, which had a definite power/control aspect to it, and how much I enjoyed that - but only because it was something the other person actively wanted as well. I find the idea of someone doing something just to make the other person happy in a sexual context not very pleasing ... well, small things maybe, but not something of that sort of magnitude. So we agreed that when we finally met, that dynamic wasn't going to be a thing for us, and that was fine.

Except it turned out to not be the case at all ... although we started off small, that's totally the path we've gone down (although only with sex, not anything else). I check in every now and then to make sure it's something he really wants, not that he's doing it just to make me happy, but he's pretty clear that he's wanting it a LOT ... apparently I just bring something out in him.

I'm thinking about my own in-charge guy, who asked me after a few vanilla sex escapades if I had any submissive tendencies. I had been exploring submission for years, but it wasn't the main reason he and I first got together. I don't know exactly what he saw or felt, but it was enough for him to suggest that we try a more formal D/s arrangement. It worked for us. It's a year later, and I don't think he (or anyone else, for that matter) would call me strong-willed or say I have a strong personality. He was enticed and attracted by something in me and looking back I'm not quite certain what it was. His way of being in charge and my way of not being so happened to complement each other well.

So I would agree that different PYLs are attracted to different things. It's quite possible that my partner wouldn't be interested in someone whose powerful personality rivals his own. Other PYLs might find that tension exciting, arousing, and riveting. It's all about finding those complements and matches, and beyond that the semantics and labels don't really interest me.

 

[cascadiabound]

Primalex:
I did not particularly think that Nickelback and diplodocci furthered the discussion on this thread, no. However...people continued the conversation in spite of them. I was being more tongue in cheek than serious when I poised my initial question in my post as I never seriously thought you intended to stall the thread, but I had observed that approximately 21 hours had elapsed since your post and mine. Made me think that there was something about your post which somehow squelched further conversation. I do not actually believe this was your intent - merely an effect.

This is an interesting statement, as it raises the question whether you believe that Nickelback and diplodocci did further the discussion.

(As a side note, the combination of "in fact" and "it seems" is terrible. Arbitrary suppositions do not become more credible by adding "in fact".)

Yup - terrible sentence. You are correct - My 11th grade composition teacher would have given me red marks too.

And if you had said "NO"? Then the combination lock would still have the same combination.

I do not believe that arbitrariness helps us to communicate.

In this case I was using a metaphor. Perhaps it was inelegant and did not illustrate what I wanted particularly well.

Now, to answer your very first question - the wrong use of terms has been and will always be one of my pet peeves:

And I found the insinuation of ulterior motives very offensive. And I mention this because I've never been ambiguous how I feel or how I feel about other posters or why I do the things I do - this was the case the last 10 years and this is not going to change the next 10 years.

Indeed, I have observed your pet peeve, well illustrated by your list of posts. Again, it was NOT my intent to insinuate ulterior motives. I was actually trying to be a bit light (yes, I know, tone is missing in text - my mistake) ... in responding to your post, which I found to be a bit overly pedantic, and while completely logically true, unhelpful. My post was certainly imperfect, however, it was my intent to get the conversation going again, which worked.

cb

 

[purplerosecrab]

In both cases, the in-charge guy saw something in us that triggered that side of him. It was unplanned, unexpected, and, maybe, inevitable. It's encouraging to know that difference in personality doesn't have to be a barrier to enjoying one's submissiveness or finding a match for how we choose to submit.

I don't experience a lot of dissonance between my everyday personality and my submissiveness. In most situations, I tend to yield and defer, and over time I've gotten better at finding situations where I can use those characteristics to benefit me. I'm also not short on passion and desire, interests and preferences, of which submissiveness is one.

Ha - interestingly when I first started talking online with the guy I'm seeing now, he mentioned having been in a 'dominant' role in previous relationships, but only because that's what the other person wanted - while he was happy to make them happy, it wasn't something he really wanted in a relationship. We talked a bit about my prior relationship, which had a definite power/control aspect to it, and how much I enjoyed that - but only because it was something the other person actively wanted as well. I find the idea of someone doing something just to make the other person happy in a sexual context not very pleasing ... well, small things maybe, but not something of that sort of magnitude. So we agreed that when we finally met, that dynamic wasn't going to be a thing for us, and that was fine.

Except it turned out to not be the case at all ... although we started off small, that's totally the path we've gone down (although only with sex, not anything else). I check in every now and then to make sure it's something he really wants, not that he's doing it just to make me happy, but he's pretty clear that he's wanting it a LOT ... apparently I just bring something out in him.