quote:

Do you think a prisoner is submissive to a prison guard?  I assume yes.  Do you think a prisoner wishes to please a prison guard as one might by bringing breakfast in bed?  I assume no.  Well unless the prisoner sees it as an opportunity to spit in the guard's food ;-)  If my assumptions are incorrect, please elaborate.  If my assumptions are correct, how do you explain a submissive role that does not include pleasing?  Why do you think pleasing is essential to submission?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued
... I question whether a person in such a state can actually consent and how healthy such a scenario is for the participants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued
Just where the kinky play and BDSM dynamics we kinksters enjoy come into things is a bit murky.  Still, I'd venture to say it's closer to self actualization than to a purely psychological need.  [clipped]
Elan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mettadas
There's a difference in our thinking right there.  I do see masochism as a desire for emotional or physical suffering.  I don't see a desire to let go of ego as masochistic at all.  A meditation practice may have this as a goal, for example, but I don't think the meditator is necessarily a masochist.

quote:

That subordination does not cause me any emotional pain.  In fact it can be quite comforting, or even blissful.

quote:

Now here is where it perhaps gets a bit more complicated:  I do enjoy humiliation play, which quite clearly is emotional suffering.  But I like the suffering because it brings about feelings of submission, not the submission because it brings suffering. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reigna

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
How would you characterize a desire to be subservient and subordinate, to be given orders and have to comply, to be powerless before the will of another, and to otherwise be in a state that would lessen the ego by vanilla standards?

You didn't ask me, but I'd characterize the desire you posit as a cultural expectation. Also, I'd note that some definitions of submission take it a step further and demand that the submissive get nothing--zero, zip, nada, nor the teensiest tingle up the leg--from the exchange. It's yet another cultural expectation, and a chimeric one, at that.

quote:

You are aware, of course, that some (not me) will advise you that religion lessens the ego, therefore submission is religious in nature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued
I realize you were speaking to mettadas, but this aspect of your post caused me to ponder.

quote:

Do I think a prisoner wishes to please a prison guard as one might by bringing breakfast in bed to their domina?  Absolutely not, but I also think we're talking about a different kind of submission here.  This is submission born from a need for self defense.  Is this the same kind of submission we kinksters think of?  I don't think so.  It's not consensual.  It's very literal.  There are few (if any) aspects of mutual negotiation of feasibility and desirability.  But, I'll most certainly agree that there is a submissive and a dominant party.

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

I agree not all submissives are masochists. But then why should all submissives be service submissives or wish to please? That is the point I am pondering in this thread.

Thank you for clarifying where you're coming from Sea.  That's certainly seems to me to be a very valid question as there are many who are obviously submissive in various forms, but clearly do not wish to be of service to dominants, yet are not what many would refer to as "bottoms".  Exploring that particular realm of submission is indeed interesting as it's not often spoken of in a positive sense; but still may be an important element of our submissiveness that many of us have to a greater extent than we may be aware of.

quote:


When I say that drives outside of submission make the matter more complex yet I mean that the sum behavior of a submissive (in my case, at least) might be the collective expression of his masochism, affection and devotion, romance, spirituality, and ego.

quote:


Masochism has me enjoy or wish for that that is considered to cause physical or emotional discomfort by vanilla standards. Affection and devotion drive me to please. Romance aligns with affection and devotion and has me seek a relationship that balances submission, masochism, and companionship--it creates a want in me to have a companion and to go through experiences of life as companions do. I consider devotion and the desire to please to have spiritual value--I sometimes feel a meditative calm when serving. I think there is a gratification most humans find upon devoting self to something (a cause, person, a religion), which I consider spiritual in nature. And ego is what makes me want to be respected and loved. Sometimes ego conflicts with drives that come from masochism and submission. A given act might span multiple drives.

I can relate to what you speak of while serving, although I've never thought of it as being something that's spiritual.  I'll have to give that some thought.  I will say that I've gone into sub-space on more than one occassion while doing things like focusing on giving a Mistress a foot rub.

quote:


I do not seek a subservient or subordinate status to escape the burden of responsibility but simply because it arouses me. I consider this response to be counter-intuitive to what one might expect of an ego and consider it to come from a masochistic place. That is, I enjoy that that would lessen the ego for a vanilla person and consider this response to be masochistic.

As an aside, I'm suddenly reminded of the lyrics to a Jimmy Buffett song called "It's my Job".

quote:


The point I wish to convey here is that submission and masochism are not mutually exclusive and that some desires for submission are masochistic in nature.

They could be.  OTOH, submission could also come from a desire to let go of one's ego.  If one doesn't feel the need to be "in control" of things in general or enjoys the feeling of freedom they get when they turn control of their ego over to another, I wouldn't call that masochistic, nor would I say that's necessarily rooted in having a need or desire to serve.

quote:


To tie this point to the discussion we have been having, one can imagine a submissive who wishes to be submissive  not for the desire to please but for reasons that I consider to be masochistic. How would you characterize a desire to be subservient and subordinate, to be given orders and have to comply, to be powerless before the will of another, and to otherwise be in a state that would lessen the ego by vanilla standards?

quote:

quote:

Are we speaking of a physical or emotional masochist?  I can see one acting out of a need to fulfill something of an addiction to pain and the other acting out of more of a learned system of dysfunctional behavior as I wouldn't see an emotional masochist as likely to be capable of having a healthy relationship or posessing the positive self-esteem that a dominant would want to have for a partner. 

Typically, a masochist is defined as someone who receives emotional or physical discomfort. I am broadening the definition of masochist to include one who wishes for a situation that ordinarily lessens the ego. I consider this masochism to fall under emotional masochism, or, at least, be a mental form of masochism.

quote:


There is a woman from Arizona who used to post on b.com who makes me feel like a newcomer to BDSM when she speaks of emotional SM. She and her dom have a healthy relationship that has lasted for longer than I have been in BDSM. And she seems to have a healthy esteem. I don't see emotional masochism to exclude positive self-esteem or a healthy relationship. I think the interest in itself does not define whether it is healthy or not but rather what all is behind the interest.

Thanks for engaging me in discussion.

Cheers,

Sea

You're welcome Sea.  I'd strongly agree that what's behind the motivation would be of the utmost importance in determining whether or not emotional and/or mental masochistic play was healthy or not for the submissive.  I find this discussion very interesting and feel the need to reflect on it in terms of my own submission.  I enjoy going to places with a Dominant I trust that might be similar to what you suggest.  I've never viewed it as emotional masochism, but more as freeing myself of inhibitions that our society places on men and women.  Being with a woman who loves and appreciates me for the submissive male that I am, allows me the freedom to do that; feeling safe in the knowledge I'll not be judged or diminished by it in her eyes afterward.    What anyone else thinks really matters not...

quote:

ORIGINAL: pixelslave
I can relate to what you speak of while serving, although I've never thought of it as being something that's spiritual.

quote:

Hmmm... unless you desire this in a 24/7 context, might one consider this a form of role-play?

quote:


that person could simply be coming from a place of not having a need to control others, and open to the guidance and direction from another they view as more capable than they are of making decisions in their best interest. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
Typically, a masochist is defined as someone who receives emotional or physical discomfort. I am broadening the definition of masochist to include one who wishes for a situation that ordinarily lessens the ego. I consider this masochism to fall under emotional masochism, or, at least, be a mental form of masochism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chiaThePet

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

Having the ego lessened is usually not associated with a life philosophy and involves not a general humility but humility before an individual or a group of individuals. Having the ego lessened is not about living simply, but being made to live as if of lesser status. Shedding the ego does not require a desire to be ordered what to do (one who sheds the ego might look within self for guidance and enlightenment), whereas a desire to have the ego lessened does.

quote:

Why would someone want their ego lessened? Why would someone wish to be objectified and used as a footstool? Why would someone want to be ordered what to do? Why would someone wish to be and take delight in being spat on and find gratification in the lesser, submissive status they feel? In my opinion, these specific wants and the general want to have one's ego lessened are masochistic wants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

quote:

ORIGINAL: chiaThePet

I think introspection and understanding one's psychology is constructive and of practical benefit.. And I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume your post is more for sake of humor than to slam the discussion.

Cheers,

Sea

quote:

ORIGINAL: chiaThePet

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

quote:

ORIGINAL: chiaThePet

Let's cut to the chase. What was the intent behind your post? It seems you are mocking the discussion and those who participated in it. Is that your intent?

Cheers,

Sea

quote:

ORIGINAL: chiaThePet
What didn't you understand Sea? Post 1 or Post 2?

quote:

ORIGINAL: chiaThePet

Yes, I am known as I am known, as I previously stated. (Post 2)

However, I respond to many different discussions in many different ways.

Here, it is made clear, that in all your words of how being submissive is
manifested in many ways within and without pertaining to yourself, I am
limited to that which benefits you most in this situation. You have already
mocked me by doubting my sincerity. Much obliged.

I'll just run along now and leave you to your ego.

chia* (the pet)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chiaThePet

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

quote:


Hmmm... unless you desire this in a 24/7 context, might one consider this a form of role-play?

 
 
I use the term lower status to describe an imbalance in authority, rank, power, or privileges (for example, a superior officer and subordinate officer, or a historical master-servant dynamic. I see a difference in rank, authority, or privileges to reflect a difference in power). I do not suggest that the person who assumes a lower status is of lesser social worth--in fact, I dispute that notion (that an interest in submission makes one a lesser person) when I see it. In my opinion, this difference in status is willingly assumed as a ritual or expression of the respective roles.

While the term status may not be commonly used in BDSM, I use it to describe expression or activity that is common in BDSM (difference in privileges for use of furniture, one person must seek permission to use a bathroom whereas the other does not, one person enjoys the orgasm and the other cannot have it, use of honorifics).

quote:


You are correct that I do not seek a relationship with the type of lower status in a classic master-servant relationship. The reason is that while the idea appeals to the masochist in me, it does not align well with my concept of romance and companionship. Yes, it can be achieved via roleplay, or via a non-exclusive or non-longterm relationship that is based on only this dynamic.

A broader, or a long-term relationship would lean towards that that satisfies all the components. For instance, I think my penchant for service is there because it aligns or has potential to align with multiple components: status-based masochism, affection and devotion, romance and companionship, spirituality, and ego (because I do well at it). And there might be acts that feed only one component or some of the components as part of a greater balance that satisfies all components.

Hey, well, at least I was correct on something!   I suspect, to a large degree we both seek similar things in a relationship with a Dominant in that at the end of the day, we both desire mutual respect and love from a Dominant that will also be our life partner.

quote:

quote:


I may be veering off track here as you did state "that would lessen the ego for a vanilla person", and since you're clearly not vanilla, you may be saying it wouldn't lessen your ego.  Is that the case?

 
 
If a vanilla person had to kneel to convey submission, it would likely lessen his ego. I might instead enjoy the same act without any loss of ego. In fact, it may even be said to be ego enhancing (as holding hands might be for a vanilla man because the act represents a positive interaction in his social relationship).

Completely understood!   BTDTBTTT!

quote:

quote:


If not, if viewed in the context of one's spirituality, serving is serving, and to me one's status is irrelevent.

 

Service can be for spirituality. Service can be a gesture of regard and fondness. Or service can reflect different power statuses. How I respond depends on whatever dynamic is created by the persons involved.

quote:


It appears to me as though determination that one's role is of a subordinate status is something that's largely culture driven and is also a matter of one's self-esteem.  In some cultures, the same role would be given a higher status than in others.

 
 
My interest in submissive activity is not driven by esteem but because it brings me psychosexual gratification. I do not seek submission because I think I am of lesser worth, neither do I wish to be of lesser worth in a general sense. I wonder if my use of the term masochism is throwing you off in the direction of self deprication.

quote:


I like what I like because it reflects an imbalance in power or status. I like to be under the power of another because it brings me pyschosexual gratification. Why do I get psychosexual gratification from being under the power of another? I consider this response--to get psychosexual gratification from being under the power of another--to be a masochistic response.

I understand the psychosexual gratification aspect.  You might say that's almost a given.    Where we differ as I stated earlier is that I see being under the control of another as freeing me of social contraints to free myself of inhibitions that our society places on men and women.  Being with a woman who loves and appreciates me for the submissive male that I am, allows me the freedom to do that; feeling safe in the knowledge I'll not be judged or diminished by it in her eyes afterward.    What anyone else thinks of me is of no concern. 

quote:

quote:


They could be.  OTOH, submission could also come from a desire to let go of one's ego.  If one doesn't feel the need to be "in control" of things in general or enjoys the feeling of freedom they get when they turn control of their ego over to another, I wouldn't call that masochistic, nor would I say that's necessarily rooted in having a need or desire to serve.

 


Submission can come from different places, of which masochism is one.

quote:


that person could simply be coming from a place of not having a need to control others, and open to the guidance and direction from another they view as more capable than they are of making decisions in their best interest. 

 
It is one thing to not want to control others and another to want to be controlled by another. Sure, for some people the release of responsibility may be one reward in the mix of things that drive them to be under the power of another. However, there are many subs who are just fine with the responsibility of making decisions. What do you think drives these subs to want to be under the power of another?

When I look at myself, I don't feel the need to be in control of many situations.  So if a Dominant want to take control of certain aspects of our relationship, I'm more than happy to give her that control as part of a power exchange.  To me, control is largely an illusion.  Many think they are in control when they are not.  I accept that there are many things in life which I have no control over.  So if a dominant wants to believe she has control over them, I'm more than willing to let her!  From my POV, I've lost nothing in giving control of something to someone else that I didn't believe I had control of to begin with!

quote:

quote:


You might contrast this with the case of others who view a Domme or Mistress as a Goddess that's worthy of their worship.  They also generally view themselves as being of a lower status relative to their Dominant, but they seem to do so not necessarily by lowering their own status, but instead by elevating the status of the Dominant.  I find the contrast with what you speak of to be quite distinct and significant.

 
It seems you think it is significant that I have referred to lower status of the submissive and not a higher status of the dominant, with which I disagree.  I think you are reading into something that is not there. If you think there is a sense of self loathing or an esteem issue that drives my interests, you are incorrect. My style of service leans towards creating a sense of regality. I use the term status to represent an assumed imbalance of power and rank. The dominant assumes the higher status of power and rank and the submissive assumes the lower status of power and rank. When I am directing the focus on the submissive, I use the term lower status. When I speak of the statuses, I do indeed refer to them relative to each other, and not to the general public.

Thank you for the clarification.  From your statements above, would it then be safe to conclude that you are of a chivalrous nature and let's put the "woman on the pedestal" school of thought, which is my approach to relationships as well?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
Typically, a masochist is defined as someone who receives emotional or physical discomfort. I am broadening the definition of masochist to include one who wishes for a situation that ordinarily lessens the ego. I consider this masochism to fall under emotional masochism, or, at least, be a mental form of masochism.

I add these words to my prior comment:

I am broadening the definition of masochist to include one who wishes for a situation that ordinarily lessens the ego, but experiences gratification with no ego loss or emotional discomfort.

This is one scenario amongst many that are possible.


Cheers,

Sea