quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

It is possible to be both, you know. 

Just because I'm submissive doesn't mean I'm weak or trying to escape decision-making.  I'm perfectly capable of being responsible for myself and being a leader.  I'm actually a pretty darn good leader, too.

However, just because I'm capable doesn't mean it's my preference.  I'm perfectly happy being led, sheltered and protected by Firm and he gains the benefit of my "capable" skills, however he wants to use them.

While I haven't specifically asked him, I would hazard a guess that it also means at least a little bit to Firm that I am his because of choice and not because I just needed someone.  The trust and respect that I have placed in him is a great compliment to his abilities.  Because I don't need him to lead, shelter and protect me, it evidences how greatly I admire him and his abilities that I do choose to defer to him.

Yes, I realize that it is possible to be both -- as I said, most of the submissive types I've encountered over the years fall into that category... they're perfectly suited to leadership, and don't really shy from self-direction, and they -choose- to give themselves up to someone with that understood....

Frankly, this isn't about that group of submissive types -- this really -is- about it being really OK to -not- be suited to leadership... that it is ok to struggle not to self-direct...and that there is nothing wrong with seeking someone because there is a genuine need in one's life for someone to lead, shelter, and protect.

Vulnerability is -not- a sin. The point of this post was that it is NOT a bad thing to need, and to know that you need, and to seek out what you need... and that it is not a bad thing to welcome someone who -does- need. (Needy is -also- not a dirty word). It's ok to have someone in one's life who fights ones battles for one... and it is ok to be the person who gets off on fighting other people's battles and guiding other peoples lives, and who is not embarrassed or ashamed to keep someone who needs them. I started listening and reading, and found it interesting how many people want to dominate someone... but don't really want the submissive type to -need- them... and how many s-types are afraid that someone might think that they -do- need their dominant type. I think I realized that, for me, that simply no longer made sense.

Calla Firestorm

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Submissives (slaves, or what-have-you) are often told by dominants that their needs will be provided, but their wants will only be considered.

If a sub needs you, then she is assured of your presence/attention/care.  If she doesn't need you but just wants you, then she is only assured that you may grant her your presence/attention/care, if that is your whim at the time.

Can you see where this might cause some conflict in a sub?

***

My point was the conundrum that is set up in a submissive's mind when in one breath she is told that needs will always be provided but wants perhaps withheld... (this places needs firmly in the "reliable-you-can-count-on-'em column" and wants in the "you-never-know column")... then is told that to please her dominant she should not need him but only want him. 

That sort of places him in the "you-never-know column", too.  It's a bit difficult to develop trust for someone when you don't know if they are going to be there for you.

***

Unfortunately, the first thought that comes to my mind when I hear someone say that they don't wish to be needed is that they don't wished to be relied upon... they don't want to be responsible... that they wish to be selective about when and if they are available and for what purposes.

***

By nature, I'm very cautious about taking risks.  When it comes to exposing myself in an intimate relationship as a submissive, I'm even more cautious that who I'm submitting to is going to be comfortable dominating and able to do so responsibly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IvyMorgan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

this slave has never heard of a situation where one would have to go through a period of time dominating and controlling others, in order to be viewed as capable of submission or slavery...but the other way around, isn't that uncommon.  this slave believes that it contributes to the negative attitude that submission or servitude is something one suffers through, as a means to an end, or enjoys situationally, until they return to their otherwise dominant persona.

That's a new way to look at that situation.  Thank you, Beth.

*ponders*

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
It is possible to be both, you know. 

Just because I'm submissive doesn't mean I'm weak or trying to escape decision-making.  I'm perfectly capable of being responsible for myself and being a leader.  I'm actually a pretty darn good leader, too.

However, just because I'm capable doesn't mean it's my preference.  I'm perfectly happy being led, sheltered and protected by Firm and he gains the benefit of my "capable" skills, however he wants to use them.

While I haven't specifically asked him, I would hazard a guess that it also means at least a little bit to Firm that I am his because of choice and not because I just needed someone.  The trust and respect that I have placed in him is a great compliment to his abilities.  Because I don't need him to lead, shelter and protect me, it evidences how greatly I admire him and his abilities that I do choose to defer to him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Does that make sense? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida

Society doesn't like those who are perceived as "weak."  It is clear, not only on these boards, in this "lifestyle", but in life in general.  There seems to be this certain level of achievement we all must reach - whether financially, independently, emotionally, or whatever - that, until we reach it, we have not garnered the respect of others. 

This is seen on the boards here all the time.  There are several women here who are enslaved and who have my sincere respect, but who might fit into that ever popular criticism of "doormat" or "robot" or whatever else the better-thans seem to want to call it.  The fact is, there are all kinds of people in this world.  We might not want to live the way others do, but I never did understand the need to hurl insults at someone who will do whatever his/her owner wants, or who is perfectly happy to be utterly submissive in all things and fully dependent on the owner.  Being dependent or less emotionally strong/independent (for lack of a better word) does not mean being stupid, or less valuable a human being.  I'm pretty sure if a dependent slave's owner went away tomorrow, survival instincts would kick in and the slave would figure out a way to get by.  Sometimes people act as though the slave would probably just sit on the floor until he/she either starved or until someone else came to his/her rescue.

In my opinion, however, this does not make the slave unaccountable for being in whatever position he/she ends up in.  But the lack of compassion for those who might think or live differently is a pity to me.  We're all weak in something, after all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

Treasure, that makes -perfect- sense. With you having said that, there is this image that just flashed in my head that wonders how many s-types who -are- in that 'need' category are holding themselves together with bubble-gum and Scotch tape, hanging on by their fingernails, living their lives and hoping that someone, somewhere will 'step up'... and even more, for the ones who have let down their guards and been let down in return... and then have to figure out how to haul themselves back up by their bootlaces and try to survive, wondering why, in a world where people are told "just be yourself", that sentiment just doesn't extend to them.

Calla Firestorm

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Does that make sense? 

Treasure, that makes -perfect- sense. With you having said that, there is this image that just flashed in my head that wonders how many s-types who -are- in that 'need' category are holding themselves together with bubble-gum and Scotch tape, hanging on by their fingernails, living their lives and hoping that someone, somewhere will 'step up'... and even more, for the ones who have let down their guards and been let down in return... and then have to figure out how to haul themselves back up by their bootlaces and try to survive, wondering why, in a world where people are told "just be yourself", that sentiment just doesn't extend to them.

Calla Firestorm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlamingRedhead

So, I discovered a lifestyle where on the surface this seems to be accepted and even encouraged.  However, the longer I was on this site and the more I read, my heart sank and hope was lost.  Dominants only seemed to be looking for strong, independent, self-sufficient, totally has their shit together women.  All the submissives seemed to be exactly that....saying they didn't need a dominant in their life and were only here because they chose to be.  WTF?  It didn't make any sense to me. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

that it is ok to struggle not to self-direct...and that there is nothing wrong with seeking someone because there is a genuine need in one's life for someone to lead, shelter, and protect.

Vulnerability is -not- a sin. The point of this post was that it is NOT a bad thing to need, and to know that you need, and to seek out what you need... and that it is not a bad thing to welcome someone who -does- need. (Needy is -also- not a dirty word). It's ok to have someone in one's life who fights ones battles for one... and it is ok to be the person who gets off on fighting other people's battles and guiding other peoples lives, and who is not embarrassed or ashamed to keep someone who needs them.

I started listening and reading, and found it interesting how many people want to dominate someone... but don't really want the submissive type to -need- them... 
 
as the dominant-type in this kind of relationship, it becomes really important to evaluate how much responsibility for another person one can take on... The tradeoff is that completely yielding servant... but someone has to pick up the aspects that have been laid down  

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
However, there is another type of servant out there -- the person who yields because xhe -doesn't- want to make decisions, and -doesn't- want to have to be strong or deal with crises or direct hir own life. Let's face it -- we're not all leaders.