Dirty Words

[DowntownAmber]

Great topic to bring up Redhead. I'll pick through and comment from my own perspective. Apologies in advance if I get long winded!

I have nothing against erotic humiliation. In fact, it's one of my major turn-ons. I'll happily answer to just about anything my lover chooses to call me. What I do have a problem with in this lifestyle is the almost constant verbal degradation of those perceived to be at the extreme end of the spectrum in regards to submission. We call them all manner of things, including unsophisticated, timid, needy, and weak, but most often, we refer to them as doormats.

Society lauds the accomplishments of the strong, independent, self-sufficient go-getters while condemning those who are self-effacing and meek. Feminists have done much to alleviate the notion that women are somehow inferior to men in intellect and ability as was common conjecture until the mid 1900s. However, somewhere along the way, those who didn't live up to the Wonder Woman image of modern times became scapegoats and targets of derision.

Just observe how many submissive women feel it necessary to state that they aren't weak and don't need a dominant male to make their lives complete. Obviously, there is still a stigma attached to being submissive, even amongst those in the lifestyle.

I am one of those women that is perfectly comfortable on my own, taking care of myself and being dominant in the majority of my interactions. "Wonder Woman" would be a huge stretch, lol, but it would be pretty unlikely that I would be described as submissive by very many people outside of immediate lifestyle contacts. That's me, who I am at my core. I play to my strengths.

When I see someone who is submissive an all aspects of their life, I don't immediately label them a doormat and I am not offended by them in any way. In fact, I have deep respect for those that are submissive in all aspects and strive to be the best sub they can be. To me, that is a person playing to their strengths, and being the best they can be at what they want to do and feel compelled to do.

When I refer to someone as a "doormat," I am referring to someone that does not strive to embrace their submission, but defers to it becuase they just don't feel worthy to be anything else. To me, that is an insult to submission and many submissives. Submission is a level of service and personality, not the default reaction to low self-esteem.

Further evidence of this can be seen in the number of dominant males who feel it necessary to proclaim that they only seek those who have something besides themselves to bring to the table. Apparently, the gift of submission isn't held in as high esteem as lifestylers would have one believe.

I'm not sure I would say that. My submission to J was special to him because it was something very few people would or could ever get from me. It was exclusive. It made him feel special to recieve something unique. It made me feel the same way to give it.

It seems to me, from my observations, that these dominant males seeking strong females don't want to be needed. They want her to take care of herself as well as him. She can be a CEO in the real world, but she's to be nothing more than a fetch-and-carry when she gets home. WTF?!?

Again, I think it's a matter of exclusivity - the desire to be needed by someone who doesn't need simply for the sake of it - they (the Dominant)are wanted for something very special that only they can seem to provide for the submissive.

I need a bit of clarification here as well... When you say "she's to be nothing more than a fetch-and-carry when she gets home," I sense a little of the same predjudice that this post seems to be appealing against. I myself don't care for the phrase "nothing more than."

On the other hand, there are plenty of submissive females who love to reiterate again and again that they submit by choice and not by need. Since when did need become a dirty word? You can talk about taking a break from reality when you get home all you want, but it still leaves the question as to what to do about those for which this isn't a game to be played in the bedroom but a real life need to be dominated and controlled in order to be a happy and functioning member of society.

I don't know if "need" is a dirty word, but "choice" is indeed a beautiful one. If it weren't an issue of choice and simply one of need, I guess the specifics of our partners wouldn't be an issue. We could all just line up as Doms and subs and pair off.

For example, I need to eat. But I choose what I like, I choose to take time to prepare it and serve it, or I choose not to care. If I just answered the need I could eat dirt and get by.

I also don't think that submission is a game to those who are dominant in their day to day. Because you are not submissive to everyone does not make you less submissive to your particular Dom.

Why, especially here, should people who are deeply submissive be made to feel that they are subhuman and something to be avoided at all costs. Why aren't they, instead, praised and emulated? Why are those who are willing to do anything to please their master regarded as unhealthy and undesirable?

Tom of Sweden loves his wife/slave whom he considers a doormat. There's another married M/s couple on another BDSM site whose posts detail the fact that she is loved and cherished above all else, even though she's the type that unless you take her by the hand and lead her out will stand in the subway all day letting others go first. With all the soul-searching I've done over the last 2 years or so, I've come to realize, or maybe knew all along but was afraid to admit even to myself, that I would be happiest if I could just be myself, a stereotypical weak woman, enslaved by and dependent upon her master, instead of trying to convince myself and everyone else that I'm exactly the opposite.

The question burning in my mind is this. With so few masters actually willing to be entirely responsible for another human being, where does that leave the truely submissive? Where can they (we?) find a safe haven and acceptance, if not here in the lifestyle? With everyone encouraging others to just be themselves, why does it always feel like they're (we're?) not included?

I certainly hope that because I am who I am, I don't act like I am better than anyone else. I will admit though, I do worry about the safety of subs that sub to anyone and anything, and I worry about the Masters that seek out a sub that will be collared without any type of criteria for the one that collars her. Those are the "doormats" to me and it's scary how easily they can be damaged and taken advantage of.

Everyone, I think, should have enough respect for themselves and their role to be the best sub or Dom or whatever they can be. If you're subbing because you think you have no value and that's what you deserve, I simply see a problem.

[damyanti]

Great topic, I think in part its due to the fact that we live in an age of individuality and self sufficiency...and it has been built into our communal conscience that individuality equals freedom and it must be preserved at all cost.

I think a lot of submissives, myself included, are intimidated and scared by such complete and utter surrender. Too many horror stories, too many trust issues. But I have never judged those who choose it as bdsm (slave) lifestyle, but rather when I say doormat I mean what good_girl said:

Just my thought but I had always perceived a doormat to be someone who accepts that which she doesn’t really want…not as in punishment for an indiscretion but in life in general, a person who is not willing to speak up or act when things aren’t right for her.

I am not much into humiliation, especially verbal and there is a level of freedom and independence I find almost unimaginable ever giving up. My problem is actually on the opposite side, and its the reason I am reevaluating wisdom of actively pursuing this,...I am "stronger" than most men who proclaim themselves dominant.

Apparently, the gift of submission isn't held in as high esteem as lifestylers would have one believe.

It seems to me, from my observations, that these dominant males seeking strong females don't want to be needed. They want her to take care of herself as well as him. She can be a CEO in the real world, but she's to be nothing more than a fetch-and-carry when she gets home.

Precisely, and I am coming to this from the opposite end...words "lazy boy" come to mind.

I am one of those "strong, independent, self-sufficient" types, (I still work on the go-getter part, lol). I am also submissive....but while I may be quiet and reserved, I am far from meek...and that tends to shock and baffle men up.

As you say they "feel it necessary to proclaim that they only seek those who have something besides themselves to bring to the table", but you have nothing to worry about,...most pretty soon discover it is just too much bother and that there are easier "doormat" fish to fry.

Since when did need become a dirty word?

True, I have had the same thought myself...it depends on your definition of need. Just because I don't need him, doesn't mean I don't need him.

[yummysubmummy]

I'm very new at this lifestyle but I must have missed the day when they gave out the manuals on how to be the best submissive. It seems that there is possibly a lot of (behind the scenes) competition amongst subs to determine who is the 'best' submissive. I find this concept bizarre; to me it is as ludicrous as my vanilla friends having a secret competition on who is the 'best' heterosexual. (Sorry can't think of a more suitable simile)

Surely all submissives can find a safe haven in this lifestyle? I can understand that the world at large may not accept/condone the concept of total submission but I wouldn't have imagined there would be many more places more open-minded than where we all are today. Of course, I speak from a general point of view; I am well aware that in all walks of life there is the occasional t*rd that graces the sidewalk - we just need to learn to step around those!

[Flaming_Redhead]

I'm very new at this lifestyle but I must have missed the day when they gave out the manuals on how to be the best submissive. It seems that there is possibly a lot of (behind the scenes) competition amongst subs to determine who is the 'best' submissive. I find this concept bizarre; to me it is as ludicrous as my vanilla friends having a secret competition on who is the 'best' heterosexual. (Sorry can't think of a more suitable simile)

Surely all submissives can find a safe haven in this lifestyle? I can understand that the world at large may not accept/condone the concept of total submission but I wouldn't have imagined there would be many more places more open-minded than where we all are today. Of course, I speak from a general point of view; I am well aware that in all walks of life there is the occasional t*rd that graces the sidewalk - we just need to learn to step around those!

When they were giving out the manuals at the lifestyle fair, I think I must've been in the really, really long line to get a spanking. There is a lot of competition, and it's not that bizarre. It happens every day in vanilla life, i.e. best dressed, best house, best car, best kid, best job, etc. In the lifestyle, it tends to be more along the lines of most submissive, heaviest player, most toys, best clothes, etc. As far as being open minded, that's another misconception. Edge players are judged by SSC players as being unsafe, and SSC players are judged to be too soft. There are cliques in forums and in dungeons. There are certain fetishes no one wants to talk about. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but people are no different here than they are anywhere else once you get past the kink factor.

[Polaris]

What an interesting topic, thanks for posting it! I'll try and add my own perspective to this...

Personally, the need to be wonder woman to be an acceptable member of society annoys me. It is a general tendency -- kink aside -- that women are expected to achieve and overachieve, to have it all: a career, a loving family, children, success, money, the perfect partner, perfect car, perfect looks, perfect life. How to achieve all that is beyond me, and I for my part am not willing to run after an image that's entirely constructed and entirely unrealistic...I may be missing a vital clue, but I don't believe that having everything is possible at all. I am not that old yet -- 26 to be exact -- and I am all stressed out at times about how to manage my life so that it will fit conveniently into the drawer labeled "things you need to have as a woman to be happy or at least content". Fact is, I don't buy it. It is not the life I wish to live, and it should be about choice, not being wonder woman. Anyway, I'm just rambling and not making a real point.

Thing is, if I take my submissivness into the calculation things get even more complicated. I am both, independent and dependent. I am needy as hell, I am usually very focussed on the few people really close to me -- and I want (need) a lot of attention and care. On the other hand, I need a bit of space too. I don't really know how to put it. I am submissive in all areas of my life. I am not a leader-type personality, I don't like to make decisions -- especially not for others -- and I am most comfortable in my skin when I can play a supportive role, and have somebody to tell me what to do. I struggled with this for a long time -- simply because it is what is called weakness more often than not -- but I honestly don't believe that it is weakness, it's just a different kind of strength. I am happier if I simply accept it as it is, and act accordingly. I am calmer if I do so. I am more effective, too. And I figured people don't perceive me as weak simply because I instinctively tend to follow the lead of others -- not blindly, but naturally if the direction is reasonable and the course of action makes sense to me.

To move from a more public to a more private sphere. I want to be dominated. I crave it. I need it. It centres me, balances me, it brings some structure into the chaos I tend to make out of my life. Being submissive makes me stronger, not weaker. It definitely makes me happier, saner, healthier. Having somebody in my life who genuinely cares for me -- somebody I can submit to without having to worry about the consequences -- is, in the long run, a necessity I think. This is not to say that I would stop to function in the world if there were nobody to tell me what to do, not at all. I can be self-sufficient, independent, I can manage my life rather well. But to be at my best, my happiest, my contentest -- I need to give up the control and submit to something more assertive and dominant than me. I hope that makes some sense.

Now that I've established a need -- and it's not that easy to call it what it is -- there comes the next problem. I do not want to run into something that is bad for me simply because I have a need. I admit that at times I'm a doormat -- in the bad sense. It's impulses I've learned my whole life and which I can't quite get rid of now. At times I let people walk all over me. When people close to me are unhappy, I'm the one to walk the extra miles over and over again to make them happier. This is nothing bad per se. But it is a personality trait that attracts a certain breed of people who are incredibly harmful, and who will take, take, take and then take some more until you have nothing left and are really just that -- a doormat, but one who keeps asking for me, and who gets walked over perpetually until it is so worn down that it breaks. This, to me, is not submission but a kind of unhealthy behaviour. Submission, to me, requires one to submit and one to dominate -- and dominate doesn't mean 'walk all over you'. It's a balanced dynamic of equal respect and trust, where there is a harmonious give and take. Of course it is not always fun to submit, and of course at times you end up doing things that don't give you the greatest satisfaction (at least not in the very moment), but in the end you get so much in return that very often it appears to me that I receive much more than I give...so I give more, and they give more, and everybody is happy and content. This is entirely different to being a doormat. It's a dynamic that is terrifying and wonderful at the same time, and which is -- I have no doubt -- considered as unhealthy by some if not many. To me, in the fragments I was allowed to live to this point, it is the sanest thing I have ever done. To me, knowing about it and not attempting to change my being to fit society, has taken away a lot of pressure and doubt. I can reflect about my needs and wants now, and I can make decisions based on these reflections. This also means that I don't have to be an involuntary doormat. It means that I can choose the right person and be a doormat for him. Because I want it, crave it, need it. And because he understands what it is all about and cherishes me no matter the way I am -- or maybe because of it.

Now this is a long post, and it sounds somewhat...I don't know, a little overly romantic to my pragmatic ears. In the end, it's a simple thing. I am the way I am, and trying to be somebody else doesn't make me happy. Everybody should have the right to express themselves in whatever way they choose, to live a life they feel is right for them -- and that, I believe, makes a good ending line.

[jeanne]

Very well said, Polaris.

jeanne

[IAmCanadian]

Great post, Polaris.

This in particular struck me:

"I am all stressed out at times about how to manage my life so that it will fit conveniently into the drawer labeled "things you need to have as a woman to be happy or at least content".

I have long been a believer in the idea that a woman's life can be made more enjoyable with a reduction in complexity. While this is rooted in my own sadistic sexual kinks, I think it has practical relationship applications as well.

Picking up some of the slack for a slave, caring for her and directing her, allowing her life to become less complex but no less enjoyable, is something I enjoy very much.

It also ties in with humiliation play for me. As you point out in your opening paragraph, people equate complexity with worth. Of course it isn't true that her giving up any of her complexity makes her any less valuable- but that doesn't mean she and I can't pretend it does for an hour or so each day ^_^.

And as for Flaming_Redhead's original post:

Why are those who are willing to do anything to please their master regarded as unhealthy and undesirable?

If this actually happens, it is a tragedy. A slave to whom total submission, dependance and obedience comes naturally is a rare and precious sort. A master who is willing to accept responsibility for such a submissive and make her a part of his life will find great reward if he is able to treat how her she needs to be treated.

Perhaps some Doms see it this way- the more self-sufficient the female, the greater their margin for error. With total submission, a Dom is essentially responsible for another life- and some people can't even keep a goldfish alive, so that can be a scary thought. I *do* want to be needed, though. The dependance of another on me, totally, would add great value to my own life, and make it twice over more worth living to the fullest. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't find it unhealthy and undesirable at all.

- FS

[Flaming_Redhead]

With total submission, a Dom is essentially responsible for another life- and some people can't even keep a goldfish alive, so that can be a scary thought.

How true! LMAO

[Flaming_Redhead]

What an interesting topic, thanks for posting it! I'll try and add my own perspective to this...

Personally, the need to be wonder woman to be an acceptable member of society annoys me. It is a general tendency -- kink aside -- that women are expected to achieve and overachieve, to have it all: a career, a loving family, children, success, money, the perfect partner, perfect car, perfect looks, perfect life. How to achieve all that is beyond me, and I for my part am not willing to run after an image that's entirely constructed and entirely unrealistic...I may be missing a vital clue, but I don't believe that having everything is possible at all. I am not that old yet -- 26 to be exact -- and I am all stressed out at times about how to manage my life so that it will fit conveniently into the drawer labeled "things you need to have as a woman to be happy or at least content". Fact is, I don't buy it. It is not the life I wish to live, and it should be about choice, not being wonder woman. Anyway, I'm just rambling and not making a real point.

Thing is, if I take my submissivness into the calculation things get even more complicated. I am both, independent and dependent. I am needy as hell, I am usually very focussed on the few people really close to me -- and I want (need) a lot of attention and care. On the other hand, I need a bit of space too. I don't really know how to put it. I am submissive in all areas of my life. I am not a leader-type personality, I don't like to make decisions -- especially not for others -- and I am most comfortable in my skin when I can play a supportive role, and have somebody to tell me what to do. I struggled with this for a long time -- simply because it is what is called weakness more often than not -- but I honestly don't believe that it is weakness, it's just a different kind of strength. I am happier if I simply accept it as it is, and act accordingly. I am calmer if I do so. I am more effective, too. And I figured people don't perceive me as weak simply because I instinctively tend to follow the lead of others -- not blindly, but naturally if the direction is reasonable and the course of action makes sense to me.

To move from a more public to a more private sphere. I want to be dominated. I crave it. I need it. It centres me, balances me, it brings some structure into the chaos I tend to make out of my life. Being submissive makes me stronger, not weaker. It definitely makes me happier, saner, healthier. Having somebody in my life who genuinely cares for me -- somebody I can submit to without having to worry about the consequences -- is, in the long run, a necessity I think. This is not to say that I would stop to function in the world if there were nobody to tell me what to do, not at all. I can be self-sufficient, independent, I can manage my life rather well. But to be at my best, my happiest, my contentest -- I need to give up the control and submit to something more assertive and dominant than me. I hope that makes some sense.

Now that I've established a need -- and it's not that easy to call it what it is -- there comes the next problem. I do not want to run into something that is bad for me simply because I have a need. I admit that at times I'm a doormat -- in the bad sense. It's impulses I've learned my whole life and which I can't quite get rid of now. At times I let people walk all over me. When people close to me are unhappy, I'm the one to walk the extra miles over and over again to make them happier. This is nothing bad per se. But it is a personality trait that attracts a certain breed of people who are incredibly harmful, and who will take, take, take and then take some more until you have nothing left and are really just that -- a doormat, but one who keeps asking for me, and who gets walked over perpetually until it is so worn down that it breaks. This, to me, is not submission but a kind of unhealthy behaviour. Submission, to me, requires one to submit and one to dominate -- and dominate doesn't mean 'walk all over you'. It's a balanced dynamic of equal respect and trust, where there is a harmonious give and take. Of course it is not always fun to submit, and of course at times you end up doing things that don't give you the greatest satisfaction (at least not in the very moment), but in the end you get so much in return that very often it appears to me that I receive much more than I give...so I give more, and they give more, and everybody is happy and content. This is entirely different to being a doormat. It's a dynamic that is terrifying and wonderful at the same time, and which is -- I have no doubt -- considered as unhealthy by some if not many. To me, in the fragments I was allowed to live to this point, it is the sanest thing I have ever done. To me, knowing about it and not attempting to change my being to fit society, has taken away a lot of pressure and doubt. I can reflect about my needs and wants now, and I can make decisions based on these reflections. This also means that I don't have to be an involuntary doormat. It means that I can choose the right person and be a doormat for him. Because I want it, crave it, need it. And because he understands what it is all about and cherishes me no matter the way I am -- or maybe because of it.

Now this is a long post, and it sounds somewhat...I don't know, a little overly romantic to my pragmatic ears. In the end, it's a simple thing. I am the way I am, and trying to be somebody else doesn't make me happy. Everybody should have the right to express themselves in whatever way they choose, to live a life they feel is right for them -- and that, I believe, makes a good ending line.

You said a lot of what I was thinking and feeling, but I had to stop at some point, too! I thought I would come back and add it later. You saved me the trouble! LOL *hugs*

[Flaming_Redhead]

Great topic, I think in part its due to the fact that we live in an age of individuality and self sufficiency...and it has been built into our communal conscience that individuality equals freedom and it must be preserved at all cost.

That's a good point! Part of my fear of embracing my submissiveness has been due to being afraid of loosing my identity rather than finding it.

I think a lot of submissives, myself included, are intimidated and scared by such complete and utter surrender. Too many horror stories, too many trust issues.

I think that is the main issue here. There are submissives who can't imagine living in utter surrender, and there are dominants who wouldn't know what to do with someone like that. There are people like me who would love nothing more than to be able to surrender but are afraid, and there are a few dominants who seek someone who will give it all. Then, there are the people who are actually doing it, and we tend to look at them with a combination of fear, disgust, or envy.

My problem is actually on the opposite side, and its the reason I am reevaluating wisdom of actively pursuing this,...I am "stronger" than most men who proclaim themselves dominant.

I am one of those "strong, independent, self-sufficient" types, (I still work on the go-getter part, lol). I am also submissive....but while I may be quiet and reserved, I am far from meek...and that tends to shock and baffle men up.

As you say they "feel it necessary to proclaim that they only seek those who have something besides themselves to bring to the table", but you have nothing to worry about,...most pretty soon discover it is just too much bother and that there are easier "doormat" fish to fry.

I have felt this way before, too. It's taken me a couple of years to get where I am which is not where I thought I'd ever be.



True, I have had the same thought myself...it depends on your definition of need. Just because I don't need him, doesn't mean I don't need him.

Right! I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting that you need someone, but everyone's so afraid of being seen as needy that they put up a facade like a brick wall. Vulnerability is not a bad thing.

[GearJammer]

First, there is a fair amount of good information here, and I'll cite Polaris, both for the solid info, AND for knowing herself so well. I find that to be unusual. Many people I encounter think they know themselves, but they do not, in fact. I suspect that Polaris most thoroughly does.

The following quote, however, grabbed my attention because of the near global application it has in this topic.

When I refer to someone as a "doormat," I am referring to someone that does not strive to embrace their submission, but defers to it becuase they just don't feel worthy to be anything else. To me, that is an insult to submission and many submissives. Submission is a level of service and personality, not the default reaction to low self-esteem.

Yes, Amber, the "why" IS ALWAYS more important, more telling, more influential, than the "what." I believe that if we were able to dig out the underlying "why" for all the feelings and opinions that are represented by the above posts, we would then actually be able to grasp how to change ourselves positively in this area of life, or whether or not change is warranted, far better than any of us can as it stands.

[Flaming_Redhead]

When I refer to someone as a "doormat," I am referring to someone that does not strive to embrace their submission, but defers to it becuase they just don't feel worthy to be anything else. To me, that is an insult to submission and many submissives. Submission is a level of service and personality, not the default reaction to low self-esteem.

Speaking from my own personal experience, I had not strived to embrace submission because of low self-esteem, meaning I wanted nothing to do with being submissive since I felt that it had only gotten me mistreated. People defer to abuse because they don't feel worthy of anything else. I'm sorry that you feel people with submissive personalities who are victims of abuse are an insult. According to dictionary.com, submission is defined as an act or instance of submitting, the condition of having submitted, or submissive conduct or attitude. I fail to see how this means anyone is exalted for their service and personality or somehow doesn't meet the definition because of low self-esteem. It is what it is whether it's good or bad.

I'm not sure I would say that. My submission to J was special to him because it was something very few people would or could ever get from me. It was exclusive. It made him feel special to recieve something unique. It made me feel the same way to give it.

The point I was trying to make was that these dominants seem to be inferring that they care more about what potential skills, property, or money one can bring to the relationship than how submissive or willing to please someone is. This leads me to believe that they do not wish to invest a great deal of their resources to train or care for this person they're looking for to serve them. If I had what they were looking for, they would be the last one to get it.

Again, I think it's a matter of exclusivity - the desire to be needed by someone who doesn't need simply for the sake of it - they (the Dominant)are wanted for something very special that only they can seem to provide for the submissive.

Believe me, the people who need it realize how very special it is.

I need a bit of clarification here as well... When you say "she's to be nothing more than a fetch-and-carry when she gets home," I sense a little of the same predjudice that this post seems to be appealing against. I myself don't care for the phrase "nothing more than."

Good catch! Yes, I have been struggling with the same prejudice, even against myself. Probably especially against myself.

I don't know if "need" is a dirty word, but "choice" is indeed a beautiful one. If it weren't an issue of choice and simply one of need, I guess the specifics of our partners wouldn't be an issue. We could all just line up as Doms and subs and pair off.

For example, I need to eat. But I choose what I like, I choose to take time to prepare it and serve it, or I choose not to care. If I just answered the need I could eat dirt and get by.

I guess I wasn't being very clear about choice versus need. There are people in this lifestyle who would be perfectly happy without it. There are others who would be miserable. As as person who needs dominance, I could not submit to someone unless they needed my submission to be happy. That's my choice. Why would I submit to someone who may decide one day that he's had enough and doesn't want to be in control anymore?

I certainly hope that because I am who I am, I don't act like I am better than anyone else. I will admit though, I do worry about the safety of subs that sub to anyone and anything, and I worry about the Masters that seek out a sub that will be collared without any type of criteria for the one that collars her. Those are the "doormats" to me and it's scary how easily they can be damaged and taken advantage of.

Everyone, I think, should have enough respect for themselves and their role to be the best sub or Dom or whatever they can be. If you're subbing because you think you have no value and that's what you deserve, I simply see a problem.

I personally don't know anyone like that. On the contrary, people who are very submissive worry about finding the right master and worry about being taken advantage of because it's so easy to do. For me, once someone has gotten into my heart, it's very hard to assert myself. I also don't know anyone who is into the lifestyle because they're actively looking for an abuser. If anything, they come here hoping to find a healthy outlet for their needs.

[DowntownAmber]

Additional commentary in this color!




Originally Posted by DowntownAmber
When I refer to someone as a "doormat," I am referring to someone that does not strive to embrace their submission, but defers to it becuase they just don't feel worthy to be anything else. To me, that is an insult to submission and many submissives. Submission is a level of service and personality, not the default reaction to low self-esteem.

Speaking from my own personal experience, I had not strived to embrace submission because of low self-esteem, meaning I wanted nothing to do with being submissive since I felt that it had only gotten me mistreated. People defer to abuse because they don't feel worthy of anything else. I'm sorry that you feel people with submissive personalities who are victims of abuse are an insult.

I am sorry that is how you took my comment. As someone who endured threats and verbal abuse, walked away, then was tracked down, attacked, and beaten into unconsciousness several times over the period of a few hours and suffered multiple broken bones as a result; I am the last person in the world that finds victims of abuse to be an insult.

In fact, I don't recall even bringing up abuse in my statement.

But to clarify, I will rephrase how I worded my opinion: I feel that Doms and subs are both people of absolute equal value. I love, cherish, and adore my Dom and I sub to him as a direct result of that. I sub with pride. I do not sub because I think I am in any way inferior to him and that I had better do what he says because I am simply lucky to have him and lucky that he even gave a pitiful wreck like me a second glance to begin with. In speaking with many many submissives over the past few years, I have come across a fair number that do sub for those very reasons. They allow their men absolute dominion over them because they really do think they don't deserve and wouldn't have a man any other way.

Sure, many of these relationships do turn to abuse. Some, on the other hand, end up really well when a girl pairs up with a Dom that helps nurture her esteem back into the black. All moot in regards to my point as, it is not the end result of the relationship I take offense to, it is simply the fact that something so many embrace and do out of pride and love is something that is also done in degredation.

This is not an insult to anyone that has suffered abuse or has fought with low self esteem (we've all been there, trust me), it is simply my reaction to the position of "submission" being confused with being a lesser person.

According to dictionary.com, submission is defined as an act or instance of submitting, the condition of having submitted, or submissive conduct or attitude. I fail to see how this means anyone is exalted for their service and personality or somehow doesn't meet the definition because of low self-esteem. It is what it is whether it's good or bad.

I'm not saying it doesn't meet the dictionary definition of the verb, I'm just saying certain states of submission do upset me. You're entirely correct when you say it can be "good or bad."




Quote:
Originally Posted by DowntownAmber
I'm not sure I would say that. My submission to J was special to him because it was something very few people would or could ever get from me. It was exclusive. It made him feel special to recieve something unique. It made me feel the same way to give it.

The point I was trying to make was that these dominants seem to be inferring that they care more about what potential skills, property, or money one can bring to the relationship than how submissive or willing to please someone is. This leads me to believe that they do not wish to invest a great deal of their resources to train or care for this person they're looking for to serve them. If I had what they were looking for, they would be the last one to get it.

I did not get where you were referring to Doms looking to find a sub with property or money, so I appreciate the clarification there. I do, however, still need some clarification as to why this would lead you to believe that these Doms, "do not wish to invest a great deal of their resources to train or care for this person they're looking for to serve them." If a Dom chooses a "Wonder Woman" as you referred to them in your OP as opposed to someone who is submissive and willing to please all the time, wouldn't it stand to reason that the Dom is going to have to invest quite a bit more time and energy into taming and training such a sub? I have a deep desire to submit, but I am also a boundary tester and a limits pusher because I need to know my Dom can hold his ground against me, if that makes sense. I don't think this makes me a better or more true sub, but it's who I am and it sure as Hell don't make me easy to deal with...lol





Quote:
Originally Posted by DowntownAmber
I don't know if "need" is a dirty word, but "choice" is indeed a beautiful one. If it weren't an issue of choice and simply one of need, I guess the specifics of our partners wouldn't be an issue. We could all just line up as Doms and subs and pair off.

For example, I need to eat. But I choose what I like, I choose to take time to prepare it and serve it, or I choose not to care. If I just answered the need I could eat dirt and get by.

I guess I wasn't being very clear about choice versus need. There are people in this lifestyle who would be perfectly happy without it. There are others who would be miserable. As as person who needs dominance, I could not submit to someone unless they needed my submission to be happy. That's my choice. Why would I submit to someone who may decide one day that he's had enough and doesn't want to be in control anymore?

No, you were very clear about the difference between need and choice. I do understand that you need to be dominated and that has to be provided by someone that needs a sub. I am simply adding to that by saying once a need is determined, it is up to each person not just to fill that need but to choose the specific criteria we fill it with. I need a Dom as well, I choose only to accept one that fits criteria X, Y, Z. That's all.





Quote:
Originally Posted by DowntownAmber
I certainly hope that because I am who I am, I don't act like I am better than anyone else. I will admit though, I do worry about the safety of subs that sub to anyone and anything, and I worry about the Masters that seek out a sub that will be collared without any type of criteria for the one that collars her. Those are the "doormats" to me and it's scary how easily they can be damaged and taken advantage of.

Everyone, I think, should have enough respect for themselves and their role to be the best sub or Dom or whatever they can be. If you're subbing because you think you have no value and that's what you deserve, I simply see a problem.

I personally don't know anyone like that.

Sadly, I do. And sadly I see new ones ALL THE TIME.

On the contrary, people who are very submissive worry about finding the right master and worry about being taken advantage of because it's so easy to do. For me, once someone has gotten into my heart, it's very hard to assert myself. I also don't know anyone who is into the lifestyle because they're actively looking for an abuser. If anything, they come here hoping to find a healthy outlet for their needs.

I don't think anyone is "looking" for an abuser either - I am simply saying that it is really damn easy to end up with one if you are not looking at yourself with as much value as you see in your Dom, and using your power of choice to select said Dom carefully and using a criteria that is healthy for you. We're agreeing on this point it seems.

[J-Go]

Originally Posted by DowntownAmber
I'm not sure I would say that. My submission to J was special to him because it was something very few people would or could ever get from me. It was exclusive. It made him feel special to recieve something unique. It made me feel the same way to give it. [/SIZE][/B]

yes it did very much so


... I have a deep desire to submit, but I am also a boundary tester and a limits pusher because I need to know my Dom can hold his ground against me, if that makes sense. I don't think this makes me a better or more true sub, but it's who I am and it sure as Hell don't make me easy to deal with...lol

This is the truest statement in this post


I don't think anyone is "looking" for an abuser either - I am simply saying that it is really damn easy to end up with one if you are not looking at yourself with as much value as you see in your Dom, and using your power of choice to select said Dom carefully and using a criteria that is healthy for you. We're agreeing on this point it seems.[/QUOTE]

If you don't respect yourself you crtainly will not respect your partner. If you can't respect a partner you certainly can't expect them to respect you. This is where any relationship hits rocky ground. To show up in a relationship with a list of "proper attributes" for a Dom or Sub is the kiss of death IMO.
It comes down to respect. respect a person for who and what they are not what you think they should be and you have a succssful friendship, relationship whatever...once you cross that boundry...good luck

[GearJammer]

Originally Posted by DowntownAmber
I'm not sure I would say that. My submission to J was special to him because it was something very few people would or could ever get from me. It was exclusive. It made him feel special to recieve something unique. It made me feel the same way to give it. [/SIZE][/B]

yes it did very much so


... I have a deep desire to submit, but I am also a boundary tester and a limits pusher because I need to know my Dom can hold his ground against me, if that makes sense. I don't think this makes me a better or more true sub, but it's who I am and it sure as Hell don't make me easy to deal with...lol

This is the truest statement in this post


I don't think anyone is "looking" for an abuser either - I am simply saying that it is really damn easy to end up with one if you are not looking at yourself with as much value as you see in your Dom, and using your power of choice to select said Dom carefully and using a criteria that is healthy for you. We're agreeing on this point it seems.

If you don't respect yourself you crtainly will not respect your partner. If you can't respect a partner you certainly can't expect them to respect you. This is where any relationship hits rocky ground. To show up in a relationship with a list of "proper attributes" for a Dom or Sub is the kiss of death IMO.
It comes down to respect. respect a person for who and what they are not what you think they should be and you have a succssful friendship, relationship whatever...once you cross that boundry...good luck

Well said, J, very well said. May I add only that respect given to someone who thinks they do not deserve it is exactly the recipe for Amber's "Some, on the other hand, end up really well when a girl pairs up with a Dom that helps nurture her esteem back into the black." I would go so far as to say that such is a necessary characteristic of a Dom, and without it (and others, as well) a person is not a Dom, but merely a top that is stronger than the bottom.

[Flaming_Redhead]

Oops!