Maybe there are a variety of things called the submissive paradox, but there is one that comes up a lot in my life, and it’s the one that goes, if you’re submissive how come it’s not all about what the dom wants?
And it’s not just about limits and safewords and the like. Your style of play, the things that you like, that fulfill you – they have to match somewhat, or the thing isn’t going to work for most people. Submissives are people, just as needy and specific as other people.
Undertheboot has a nice post about this today, “Sustainability“. It begins
Yesterday’s post about the effect my wife talking has on me — and how I love for her to talk to me during a scene, and want more, more, more — got me thinking again about how if I was a “real” sub like some of these men I read about, I would just accept her for how she likes to run a scene. I would accept the fact that she doesn’t like talking a lot, and then roll with it. Because she gets to make the rules. I shouldn’t pressure her.
And I’m going to say that just doesn’t work for us.
He goes on to explore the tricky territory between running the relationship from the bottom and being a total slave with no say over anything. (I’ll acknowledge there are people who really do want to be slaves with no say over anything, and could do that even in a situation where there wasn’t extraordinary compatibility going in. But my guy isn’t one of them, and Undertheboot doesn’t seem to be either.)
For me, it’s fine that it’s this way. I think negotiating a relationship of mutual satisfaction is how it should be. The paradoxical quality of it is not too vexing – it’s more a matter of balance.
There are a million ways to frame this issue. Take your pick.
9 responses so far ↓
Tom Allen // 11 January 2008 at 12:04 pm
if you’re submissive how come it’s not all about what the dom wants?
‘cos there’s a difference between having/owning a human being and having/owning a tool. Hell, if you mistreat an animal enough it will eventually run away or turn on you. Even the ancients who actually kept slaves for non-sexual purposes understood this concept.
Pity the Gor-inspired consumers of BDSM erotica haven’t quite figured out the difference.
devastatingyet // 11 January 2008 at 12:15 pm
Oh, I doubt the ancients who kept slaves were any more enlightened than American slave owners who were, by all accounts, mostly horrendous.
A recent fan // 12 January 2008 at 12:14 pm
I agree with Tom – even though we do talk about “owning” and all that, we’re still talking about people rather than things. I’d think that in most cases a Domme would rather own a “thinking/feeling” slave, than an inanimate object.
Joscelin Verreuil // 12 January 2008 at 9:41 pm
From what I learned in my history classes in high school, 99% of all slave owners were mostly decent. But, 99% of all slaves belonged to the 1% of slave owners that were horrendous.
I can attempt to substantiate this upon request.
Joscelin Verreuil // 12 January 2008 at 9:42 pm
Make that “relatively” decent. I was looking for the right word.
devastatingyet // 12 January 2008 at 10:17 pm
Please do.
Joscelin Verreuil // 13 January 2008 at 2:11 am
Best bet is to contact my old history teacher, Mr. Flanders.
Hope to hell he isn’t retired.
Richard // 13 January 2008 at 5:35 pm
For me submission is a special erotic space that the right person can enable me to access. When I’m happiest I feel adoration and worship.
That doesn’t translate into violating myself or wanting to perform all of your household chores for you.
Submissively paradoxical « Denying Thumper // 6 December 2008 at 6:49 pm
[...] moment of sitting down to write it, I thought to Google “submissive paradox“. Boom. There it was. I’m a genius. In any event, here’s the basic premise I worked out all on my [...]