Mar 13, 2013 — Theory of submissive service

In a discussion on FetLife someone posted a Theory of Submissive Service and I found a link to what was quoted:  http://bdsmprotocol.wikia.com/wiki/Theory_of_Submissive_Service.

This Theory initially sort of rubbed me the wrong way, surprisingly.  I know that there are some subs who truly do experience joy “to demonstrate, through your attitude and demeanor, that the Dominant’s needs come first.”  And I experience joy with this myself but the focus of this Theory still rubbed me the wrong way at first.

In thinking further on this, I believe that the reason it rubbed me the wrong way is due to how my submission works.  Everyone’s submission works differently and this Theory implies through its wording that this is the way submission should work for everyone.  I am not a proponent of the “one twue way.”  Beyond that, though, my submission is a combination of factors and does not really fit this Theory:

1) My biggest kinky joy by far, and what I have fantasized about for decades, is being “forced” (“dominated”) to endure BDSM-type suffering (pain, humiliation, and/or servitude).  With the application of this force or domination, I could possibly be made into the type of submissive described in this Theory, or possibly not.  Not a tit-for-tat situation but a sort of being forced into it.

This Theory bypasses that step altogether, though, or at least that’s how I read it.  I read it that a submissive should submit due to a need or desire to submit, the joy is in the submission itself without any need for the enduring of suffering.  That’s great for those who are fulfilled by that, and I know that many subs are fulfilled by that, but that’s not me or at least not for my #1.

2) I also get joy from submitting to my Princess because I love her deeply and enjoy giving her joy.  I don’t know how to classify this, whether it’s just being a loving husband, being a D/s submissive, or somewhere in between, and I am learning that it doesn’t matter how I classify it because it is what it is.  That said, it is not only being a loving husband, I do get a kinky kick out of being her obedient non-suffering slave although it is not my primary fantasy.  And where I get an even bigger kinky kick is being her sexual slave, something I had not even thought about ahead of time but now that it is reality it’s great.

So maybe I should interpret this Theory of Submissive Service as having for me (not for everyone, of course) a first section not covered, something like “A submissive who is beaten down and tortured, humiliated, and forced (conditioned?) to obey….”

Damn but that’s high maintenance and I think that’s what bothers me.  I would love to be someone who gets pure joy and BDSM fulfillment from service alone, but that’s just not the case, and I think that’s why this Theory rubbed me the wrong way because it’s something cool but something which I could never even really aspire to realistically (unless we add my section about suffering onto it).

In other words, reading this Theory makes me feel insufficient or deficient as a slave.

I don’t want to be high maintenance, and much stronger than that I don’t want to be a burden to my Princess.  That is why I am so so lucky that my Princess does enjoy making me endure BDSM-type suffering, as most anyone who reads my blog can see from prior entries.  So any deficiency I might feel at not being up to the standards of this Theory, and not even being able to get up to those standards, are washed away by the fact that it doesn’t matter.

What matters is that for me to be the sub or slave that I and my Princess want me to be.  I still have a ways to go to get there, it’s a marathon and not a sprint.

I also believe that this Theory sort of triggered in me a realization that there seems to be a difference in what many dominant women want and what many submissive men want.  I frequently see dominant women comment on FetLife about how difficult it is to find a “truly” submissive man, and the women go on to discuss how sometimes men say they will submit but it only occurs for a short time, not at all in reality, or just for certain activities.  I wonder how many of those man were hoping for a much heavier hand of dominance and suffering and then their submissive desires fizzled when they were expected to simply obey without much of any suffering?

“Grovel on the floor!” “Yes Mistress!!” “Feel my whip!” “Yes Mistress!!!!” “Clean my bathroom” “Uh, what?”

I am only talking out of my hat here, because I know that many sub guys do not want any suffering at all.  By the way, here is a blog entry about my three Ss of submission:  http://www.assdisc.com/blog/?p=115.  Suffering is the top of my list personally, then Servicing (sexual and sensual service), followed by Service (non-sensual service).  No surprises about me there, right?

I have also read that many dominant women don’t want a high maintenance sub.  High maintenance (along with everything else) is in the eye of the beholder so for just this particular issue I guess as long as a dominant woman enjoys perpetrating some suffering and a sub guy enjoys suffering, then it’s a matter of matching or compromising the two levels of needs and desires.

One thing which is unwanted for me, but I think might be okay for many sub guys, is for a dominant to perpetrate suffering just to satiate the desires of the sub, even if it’s BDSM-type suffering.  I have read comments by a published dominant woman author  that she gives fetish fulfillment (including whipping) to her sub man as a gift.  For me that really really defeats the purpose and fulfillment which is to suffer due to a dominant’s sadistic enjoyment.  Fortunately for me, my Princess is sadistic and enjoys making me suffer as can be seen in my blog entries.  She recently told me that she really enjoyed Catwoman as a kid, and enjoyed the idea of using a whip.  Lucky lucky me!

So what do those who are discussing with a new partner negotiate for this?  “I would like you to make me endure a lot of BDSM-type suffering” “Hmmm, okay, I like a bit of that, I will try to make you endure as much as I can.”  That sort of discussion seems strange to me.  I guess it goes back to consensual non-consent, how does a sub ask to be treated “non-consensually”?  If they ask that and then it occurs, that to me wouldn’t feel non-consensual at all.  I think that the answer is time.  If it is discussed and then much later something occurs (whether or not it closely resembles what was discussed), it could feel non-consensual.  On a recent Masocast, Lee Harrington described negotiating consensual non-consent with someone and then I think it was 5 months later that it occured, completely without any forewarning but it did fall within consent because that consent was given 5 months earlier including the long term nature of it (presumably there was a safe word, or maybe not).

That said, I do not advocate not discussing issues.  Communication is very important to avoid misunderstandings and flat out incorrect assumptions.  People aren’t mind-readers!

One other thing I will say about that Theory of Submissive Service is that if I were a Master (don’t laugh!!), then I would probably want a submissive who would be able to find primary joy at my joy, without the need for “maintenance” although I’m sure I would slip in a whole lot of sadism into the equation (oops, did I type that out loud?).

Who wouldn’t want to have a partner who experiences joy at your joy?  Just ask people on the street, hey how would you like it if your partner decided to focus almost all of their attention on doing everything you enjoy?  I’ll bet the answer would be me me me me from most everyone.

Okay, I’m on a bit of a stretch here, but I really think that a huge number of even vanilla people would react very favorably to that, if their partner were sincere in that.  That said, when someone reveals their BDSM submissive desires to a vanilla partner, they often aren’t truly saying that they only want to focus on the joy of their partner, they are also saying that they have kinky desires about it, or even if they are not saying that it is natural in my view for a vanilla to hear that at least at first.  So the reality is a lot more complicated than my hypothetical fantasy ideal of a partner truly wanting to focus making their partner’s life better through servitude.  And the reality is that it can be quite jarring for a vanilla to learn that their partner has kinky desires, depending upon the person (and the desires).

Maybe if a sub really did feel that they aspired to what is listed in the Theory of Submissive Service it would be a nice statement to give to their dominant, sort of like giving a holiday card, as long as it is sincere.

One thought on “Mar 13, 2013 — Theory of submissive service

  1. Essentially, it is your cheerful errand to illustrate, through your mentality and aura, that the prevailing’s needs started things out. Your capacity to devotedly serve your predominant is a standard by which others will judge you AND your prevailing. Will your mindfulness satisfy your predominant as well as it will inspire those you meet both with your overwhelming’s energy and your accommodation. At the end of the day, you will be a compliant who a prevailing is glad to claim and one who others will accept is worth proprietorship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *