Quote Originally Posted by Hime View Post
Oz --

I can see where you're coming from. It actually reminds me of something my grandmother used to say -- that you shouldn't tell children that they're cute, because then they'll learn how to use it to their advantage. If a Dom took too much care to reassure his/her submissive that it's ok to be high maintenance and that it's good to be a challenge, that could easily turn into a frustrating situation where it was impossible to maintain discipline.
I would see that as a definite problem, but a balance between the need to reassure and discipline should be maintained. And the type of sub that actually attracts me tends to look on discipline as part of the maintenance routine.

However, I have seen plenty of women in vanilla relationships forcing themselves to put up with neglect and downright bad behavior from their SOs because they "don't want to be high-maintenance." A lot of women seem to want to be "low-maintenance" so much (because they think it's the only way to be attractive to men) that they ignore their own warning signs and limits. In a vanilla relationship, that can lead to a lot of pain, but in a BDSM relationship it could be even more serious. I don't want to see women coming into this community thinking that it's not ok for them to ask for reassurance, aftercare, or even respect for what they will and won't do, you know? You can say that a good Dom will know when to provide care and attention, but honestly, even the best Dom will sometimes have a moment of distraction or self-absorption* and not notice that his sub is struggling in a way that isn't positive or healthy.

So it seems to me that whether you glorify high- or low-maintenance, the terminology still presents a lot of problems. My opinion, which may or may not be welcome, is that that's because it's an essentially sexist idea -- that women are like cars, which provide certain benefits in return for a level of "maintenance" that is ideally kept as low as possible. In other words, the sex (and presumably cooking, child-raising, etc) are the "ride" and the time you spend talking, cuddling, and bonding are like, say, changing the oil. Having to maintain a relationship is the price you have to pay for regular pussy. Considering the value that people in this lifestyle (and on this forum!) put on their relationships, it's not surprising that using this kind of terminology, even jokingly, would lead to conflict.
Terminology and semantics often leads to misunderstandings. This is something I fully understand, which is why I try to look at everything someone is saying before judging what they mean. Why quibble over semantics if the important thing is the idea?

Quote Originally Posted by seriouslynosn View Post
I consider myself to be high maintenance. Not because I have to have my own way or I need things or I primp but because I tend to be a little too self centered. And not in a egotistical sense (boyfriend would laugh if he read this), but in the sense that I worry constantly about my actions. This might seem self-conscious, but that's just because I can't seem to explain what the hell I'm trying to say...*takes deep breath*

I try to control everything. EVERYTHING. From the cleanliness of the house to the emotional state of my man. I'm constantly needing him to take that control away from me. I guess that's what I mean.
I think this is a good example of high-maintenance in a sub. No way would I encourage this behavior, but simply punishing you every time you slipped into wanting control would be counterproductive in the long run. It is better, IMO, to reassure and cajole the appropriate response, with an appropriate mix of discipline. I find that talking about these things and explaining how disappointed I am that you continue to not trust me to manage them is very effective. This will make your eventual submission more complete and meaningful.