Printable View
juicysub: That is complete bullshit. Your opinions and beliefs are what make you a real person. A guy who cannot cope with a real person is not a real Dom. Period.
My opinion - and hubby´s. A doormat would bore the hell out of him. But then again, he is special...
Obviously you haven't seen the new doormats that can recite Shakespeare and Plato....Quote:
Originally Posted by Arria
"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow... You're welcome to come in tomorrow!"
:rolleyes:
Unnecessary to say much more, I agree with everyone else that you should never change your personal views on such topics because some "Dom" says so.
Smiles big! personally just the statement "true" of anything makes my skin crawl...as even with terms such as slave, we are still talking of human beings with individual thoughts and needs and continually evolving...can't imagine a juicy without all those quirky things!Quote:
Originally Posted by juicysub
big hugs!
Ummm.... ya think so???? I don't believe you've taught me to share that well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragoczy
Course, if it's for the good of the country, I'm sure I could find SOME way to amuse myself while you "get busy".
-Ragoczy's kitten
Perhaps a bit late on the bandwagon, here, but I agree completely with the sentiment that no one should be ordered to have certain political or religious views. And that applies to way more than just submissives. The intellectual tyranny of people who demand obedience to a particular governmental, or, worse, religious creed is responsible for far too many conflicts - personal, or societal - to be taken seriously anymore. As some have said, even if you want to be with someone who agrees with you, it is simply impossible to order that person to agree with you. Agreement is won by countless conversations and an open mind, and may turn against you (that is, you may find that you agree with the person you are trying to convince just as easily as you may convince them, especially if you're really being open minded and not just pretending). More often than that, though, agreement exists before a relationship happens. Those of us who rate political and religious concurrence highly are apt not to get involved with people who we can't agree with.
My story: I am an atheist, but my submissive is a Baha'i, and I wouldn't dare try to tell her to believe otherwise. Despite being an atheist, I despise trying to convince people that atheism is "true" or "right." It's my belief, and other people have theirs, and the world is better for the variety of religions that exist (and would be better still if more people appreciated that variety, instead of fearing it). A relationship is the same way: my relationship is better because my sub and I believe different things, and our conversations are richer because we don't always agree. While we don't have so many political differences, I think the same could be said about those who do.
Personally, what I can't stand, and what I feel it is fair to demand of someone I love, is a certain degree of awareness and education (as in: "read this"). I would never try to convince a Christian, for example, that God does not exist, but I would try to, say, make one read the Bible if she had not. Different beliefs make the world richer, ignorance makes it poorer.
I'd love to know where the requirments to be a true submissive or a real dom are written. Of course you cannot command a person to change what they think. And any Dom worth his salt should be able to convice the sub to change her views through logical argument as subserviant says.
That said, the sub must support her Dom and certainly not do anything that would work against him. This may mean that a sub has to publicly change her political or religious allegiances. This is not as shockling as it may seem and happens all the time. Are we saying the there are no women out there who haven't converted to another religion in order to marry. And isn't strange how the wife of almost every politician seems to share his political views. I am sure that in many places around the world villagers or tribesmen will vote according to how their leader dictates. And please don't tell me that everybody on the Presidents staff agrees every policy, yet all will publicly support the policy.
Personally I would not ask my sub to publicly change her views but I can see the logic behind some doms insisting on it. "Every subject's duty is the king's, but every subject's soul is his own," wrote Shakespeare in Henry V. The debate between public duty and private conscience is not new and was the central topic in the book/movie a Man for All Season which describes how King Henry VIII had Sir Thomas More beheaded when he - in denying the King's right to divorce Queen Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn - refused to sign an oath proclaiming the King supreme ruler of the church. No doubt King Henry considered Sir Thomas not truly submissive to the King's will.
This thread question is not as clear cut as everybody seems to think.
All true MacG, but in the context of being a "true" submissive... imo, out of place.
You are describing other adjectives.
The original post describes a situation that requires the sub to actually change her views, not just her support of his views. And that she would somehow be holding back something to not alter even her innermost thoughts for him... and that she would be lucky to find an accepting master...
Quote:
Originally Posted by juicysub
...and yet, from the repsonses, it seems pretty clear finding such would indeed NOT be a problem.
I don't know if it is out of place or not. Juicysub did not give all the details, not that she should have anyway. I did say that it is impossible to change her private views but it was not clear to me that the Dom wanted her to change "her innermost thoughts for him". Where did you get that from, did she say that?.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52
It seemed like everybody was bashing the Dom and I merely attempted to point out a scenario where a sub could be expected to change her (public) views. I thought I was adding a new dimension to the thread rather than going off topic.
No Macguffin, I thought it was a useful dimension too. Though for me personally really depending on the situation I think I would question the compatibility in a relationship if such a thing became common place. There is only so many times one can publicly behave a certain way that is completely disconnected from how they feel, before they're just role playing in life.
I am sorry... but as a sub I still maintain my own personal views and there will be times that I will feel it necessary to voice those opinions openly and publicly, even if they are in direct opposition of what my Dominate(s) might feel about the subject. From my perspective how am i being true to my beliefs if, when the occasion arises that I feel passionately about them, i refrain mainly for the sake of the Dominate(s) appearance?
And more importantly what does that say about that Dominate(s) that they would expect or even require that?
And... let's flip that coin...
McG you said...
So... why does it have to be the sub that must support the Dom? What if i am 100 times more passionate about a subject then the Dom is, yet his point of view is different, why must he not support my point of view? I mean after all... I may be sub to him but he has (hopefully) promised to support and help care for me. Would that support not include supporting my beliefs as well?Quote:
That said, the sub must support her Dom and certainly not do anything that would work against him. This may mean that a sub has to publicly change her political or religious allegiances.
Bottom line there is a middle ground on this, a give and take, just as there is in a vanilla marriage. i don't agree with my husband's take on a few political issues but i choose carefully when to fight that battle and when to let it rest. Just as he does. Just as we do with most anyone we meet unless it is a true solid passion.
And honestly... I would hope that if there is a relationship, be it vanilla or D/s, that the couple has some mutual ground on their political views. Otherwise, are you really THAT compatible? Not only on political views but for things in general.
And that all being said...
The point, i believe, is what makes a sub a "true" sub? If she will take her Dominate(s) point of view? If she can hold 8 positions each for hours on end if need be? If she can fuck the entire Washington Redskins team at the instruction of her Dom? Seriously... "true" is a definition that is as broad and defined as there are people so for someone to judge that I may not be a "true" sub because I won't take someone else's view point I can as easily assume they aren't a "true" dominate for expecting me not to be "true" to myself. Although most dominates would want the "true" me and all of my "true" character.....at least i would "truly" hope they would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGuffin
Though she didn't use the word 'innermost', I got the statement from her entire opening post. Seemed pretty clear she implied he wanted her to change her thoughts and views... not just pretend.
hey annie, sometimes I think everybody could solve their "true submissive" issue if they just understood that being submissive does not mean being a doormat. Submitting to one person does not mean you'll submit to every person on the known planet.
I think there are SOME people who call themselves dominants who are abusive human beings, who manage to find weak and easily manipulated submissives who will do whatever they say no matter what the cost to their emotional or physical health or safety.
I think further submissives who are insecure feel the need to prove they are "more" submissive than other submissives then we get into the "more submissive than you" game. Unfortunately I think sometimes this game is created or enhanced by an immature dominant who makes some passing comment about some random sub not being "good" or "well-behaved" or what the hell ever.
So then the sub in question eats up the attention and flattery of the fact that his/her dom considers him/her to be "good" or "well-behaved" over the other sub that isn't even his. (or hers as the case may be)
The ridiculous thing is...what it really comes down to is a "good sub" is really only "good" in relation to the dom she's with. There can be no empirical "good" or "true" submissive or slave or whatever.
If you are the most perfectly obedient wonderful uber sub in the world, but such behavior bores your dom, are you really the best in HIS eyes? No.
If you are a bratty mcbrat, but your dom likes that, then haven't you attained the goal of being a sub that is compatible to the dom in question?
We all have different tastes. To act as if all doms are appropriate for all subs or vice versa, or there is some kind of moral, dominant, or submissive failure going on, is a little silly. Yet this happens all the time.
At the end of the day I think it would be easier if subs just stood up and said, "I'll submit, but not to a moron." It could solve problems.
Or for a dom to say, "I like a bit of a brat sub" or "I don't personally prefer a brat" (or whatever variations people come up with.)
There really isn't a better or worse here, just what works for the couple (or in the case of more than just two people, the group) But because the mainstream social infrastructure doesn't hold up the "reality" of what we do, there seems to be a higher drive for acceptance in kink circles and unfortunately a lower incidence of self-actualization as everybody seeks to be a "true submissive" or "true dominant."
Which makes me remember why I had withdrawn to begin with from definitions of that way. Just saying one is "owned" without qualifiers seems so much easier.
I was in the chat room with juicy when she posed the question to U/us in the chat room. She was in a PM from the so-called Dom (from another site, I believe). Juicy posted what he told her to U/us in the chat room. He made it very clear that he expected her to change her innermost beliefs and conform completely to his; otherwise, he considered her to be unworthy of his time.
Exactly... which is why my first post in this thread was...Quote:
Originally Posted by littlepet
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie
hahaha annie, I probably freaking read that! I have the memory of a goldfish.
First of all, thank you for bringing a new point of view to the debate, I love people who play the Devils advocate, :D.
But you cant really compare a loving relationship between a normal couple and a "contract" between politicians and their harpies. How many of them do really communicate?Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGuffin
Those politicians that do strike me as a "loving team"/couple are those where its clear that a wife has a mind of her own...there is a big difference between supporting your spouse and respecting his views, and actually changing your own. If a wife or a sub wont challenge her husband/Dominant who will, lol?...growing as people goes both ways. Being a sub doesn't mean one is less intelligent and being a Dom doesn't mean one is stubborn or unreasonable...on the contrary.
Look at the presidential race...which candidate do you think is more likely to hug his wife before bedtime...McCain or Obama, hmmm? Its really a no brainer.
Or look at the Kennedy's, that American staple...who do you think had/has the real marriage..."my loyalty is for sale" Jackie O or "when he told me he is republican, I thought, oh well, nobody is perfect" Maria Shriver? You just have to admire the woman who can put Terminator into his place.
(And while its not really fer to put it at her feet,) if Laura had some spine, to speak up her mind, Iraq wouldn't be a mess it is today.
annie - So... why does it have to be the sub that must support the Dom?
Because the sub has submittied to the will of the Dom not the other way round. True, he is duty bound to protect but protect and support are not the same. Yes support in the sense of wellbeing but not in the sense of "support my point of view".
annie - i don't agree with my husband's take on a few political issues but i choose careully when to fight that battle and when to let it rest.
The Ds model is not a equal rights democracy. If a sub is choosing when to fight and when not to then she has not given over decision making to the Dom (notwithstanding agreed limits) and is retaining free will and self determination.
annie - The point, i believe, is what makes a sub a "true" sub?
Submitting completely to the will and authority of the dom within the boundaries of any mutually agreed limits.
sisterhoney - He made it very clear that he expected her to change her innermost beliefs and conform completely to his; otherwise, he considered her to be unworthy of his time.
Without doubt the Dom is not only wrong but foolish to think that a person can change their beliefs at the snap of his fingers, even if they wanted to. (thanks honey for clarifying this)
Damyanti - But you cant really compare a loving relationship between a normal couple and a "contract" between politicians and their harpies.
Fair enough, lets look at the spouses (male and female) of political candidates and leaders. The overwhelming majority support their partner's policies which, unless political views are a factor in love and marriage, makes the statistics sufficiently skewed for me to smell a rat. I'd love to go scurrying into the political archives on this but sadly don't have the time. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
juicysub - Just a question i need a large range of answers for..Dom/mes: would You have Your subbie/slave change thier point of view and thoughts on politics or religion?
To put my posts back on track and address only the specific question asked.... In normal circumstances I would not instruct my sub to change her views. However I can not rule out a theoretical scenario where I would require her not to publicly express any views that may work against my interest. I would seek to convince her through logical argument that my views are right, and should she be able to convince me otherwise would be prepared to change my views.
The Dom was not juicysub's Dom so it doesn't matter what he said. And with a view like that it's clear juicysub and the Dom were not compatible and would never be in a relationship anyway, assuming it's done the right way round ie know and trust the Dom first before submitting.
Apologies to all for going off topic in my previous post. Having played devil's avocate and stirred the pot I think I will bow out of this one. I don't know, maybe it was just my inate British feeling of sympathy for the underdog when everybody was bashing a Dom who had not presened his case. Or maybe I just felt like Henry Fonda in the American movie 12 Angry Men where all the jurors jumped so quickly to a guilty verdict that he felt it merited a closer look.
"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light." - George Washington
We will always disagree on that point then. If i wanted to only be protected i'd get a doberman or pitbull. I can submitt my will... that doesn't mean i have to submit and CHANGE my values or beliefs. At that point I am no longer me... and not happy, so there would be no point to being in that relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGuffin
There is a difference between decision making and "free will/self determination"... after all each day my free well and self determination is what makes it possible for me to choose to give over decision making to someone else. And i have been told more then once now that there is no subbie bill of rights. But, if i am not even allowed to voice the differences/concerns then once again... there is no point in that relationship for me.Quote:
annie - i don't agree with my husband's take on a few political issues but i choose careully when to fight that battle and when to let it rest.
The Ds model is not a equal rights democracy. If a sub is choosing when to fight and when not to then she has not given over decision making to the Dom (notwithstanding agreed limits) and is retaining free will and self determination.
And i do that every day without loosing my beliefs in the process. Submitting to the will and authority doesn't mean becoming a mindless robot who does nothing but say "yes Sir/no Sir." Once again, there would be no point in the relationship for me if that was what was expected.Quote:
annie - The point, i believe, is what makes a sub a "true" sub?
Submitting completely to the will and authority of the dom within the boundaries of any mutually agreed limits.
A Dom is should be honest with what he wants and needs in advance if he expects a sub to match him in all things. If he needs to have a sub who is in total alignment with his religious, politic, moral and philisophocal views he should include this in his initial screening of a sub. if its that important as to be a deal breaker it should be there in your BIO with a warning label about tolerating no deviation from the Doms views.
It is ludicris to begin a realtionship with some one and expect them to suddenly change every thing that makes them the person a Dom was supposedly attracted to. In doing so the Dom says I like everything about you EXCEPT the thinking, rational part of you I dont need or want. What they are asking is not a relationship adjustment but to brainwash you.
So anyone that tries to tell you your views are incorreect simple becaue they are not mine should be avoided. That is unless you like the idea of being a mindless play toy that gets packed away when the Dom is done playing and has 'more imporetant' things to do.
So just say NO ... <WG>
Daumon
That's rediculous! Master and i share different views on loads of things but it doesn't make me less obedient or submissive to him. i'm very very opinionated when it comes to politics and religion, while He quite frankly doesn't care much for either. i'm a Christian (a very very very liberal, non-denominational, version with a loose interpretation of the Bible mind you but a Cristian just the same) and He's agnostic. W/we're even different with little things. W/we're both performers but He does film acting while i do stage acting. It's O/our differences that make U/us so in love. If W/we were the same it would be terribly dull. Whoever said that needs guidance or medication :-P
Juicy...one can only hope that the "dominant" you speak of accidently stumbles across this thread! lol
Is that old line, "Oh, I am truly submissive-just not to you" still in fashion?
It will be now...cause I'm sooooooooo stealing it! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dancer
I truly hate the whole concept of a 'true' submissive. Geez, it seems like it's only used one of two ways...to put someone down or elevate one's self. Neither of which seem like traits a 'true' submissive would have. :D
My answer is just plain NO.
There is somethings that made Me attracted to the woman I am with right now and if I would change her like that then that would alter her and probably would make me not like her very much anymore.
I want a strong woman with her own views on things. That doesnt make her less submissive but rather it makes her her own being so to speak.
I dont want a doormat. I want a woman of flesh and blood that submits to me and not a woman that I can walk all over at my whim.
There's a difference between a submissive who has the right to negotiate each and every little thing that comes up and a slave who has given up the right to negotiate and accepted the fact that Master has the final say in everything. That's what "blanket submission" is referring to. I never said slaves always obey. They understand that to do otherwise will result in their punishment OR release.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlepet