From: The t'aint of the Midwest -- Indiana
The only way I can respond to the intent of this thread, which is the idea of being "trained" to submit, is with an example.
I have a small very cute black fur person named Trilby. Trilby has been "trained" from an early age that as soon as I pour my tea water in the morning (he has to wait for the electric kettle to boil), we go into the living room and he gets his morning snacks.
This involves me sitting on the bench in the front room and tossing him hairball relief snacks. He has gotten so used to this, he catches the little snacks in his paws and sometimes they go straight into his mouth!! I would love to have a video of it, unfortunately, he considers anyone else (the other cat, the other person) to be a snack *threat,* and gets all discombobulated if they are around.
In any case, it is incredibly cute, and I have never known a cat to be so well "trained."
If I get diverted in between pouring out the tea water and going into the living room (by the bathroom, for instance), he meows piteously as if his very heart is breaking. He KNOWS the rules. Once the tea water gets poured, snacks are supposed to get distributed.
Anyone who has a cat must know I am using the term "trained" in its loosest possible meaning. There is certainly a question of who has who trained.
Does he have *me* trained to toss him snacks at a certain point in the morning? Or is he trained to try to catch the snacks in his paws or mouth? BTW: It was not my intention to do so, it came about naturally as a part of a mutually enjoyable morning routine.
Now, what is the point of this example?
That what many are calling training on this thread, I call developing rituals and routines that allow a couple to merge into a co-dependent (I am using this term in a good sense, not a bad) unit.
For instance, if I do something (like offer to brush his hair) and he reponds positively, one can say I have been trained to make that offer, even though that was not his specific intent.
However, the intent of not just wanting but needing to find ways to please him is to me a core component of submission. The actual act itself (brush his hair for him, or never touch his hair under ANY circumstances) do not matter. What matters is my own desire to be pleasing and obedient. If he never wanted me to touch his hair, that I would enjoy brushing it is secondary to me needing to be obedient.
As has already been mentioned, the idea of training a person by offering rewards (or treats) for their submission is ludicrous. If the idea of being pleasing and obedient is not its own reward, than perhaps the OP has not found a dominant able to bring that out in her. Or maybe she is just a do me .
In any case the OP's premise is a bit too much like the little black cat trained to respond for his treat. That's not submission, it's greed.