- perrin wrote:
Some contributors to this thread have stopped short of saying that all male subs are weak and pathetic, but they have implied that those that are not are exceptions.
They may not be exceptions at all. I suspect there are just as many subs out there that are not the weak, grovelling type as there are the kind under discussion. And probably about 40-50 other "types" besides that. At a minimum.
However, humans are at the mercy of their perceptions. And our perceptions are influenced by the culture that we live in. My perceptions, and those of many people I've talked with privately, are this:
(And this relates, somewhat, to the difficulty that switches can have navigating in some fora...so bear with me for a moment)
What we're talking about, essentially, are the stereotypes that our own community has about its members. Those are influenced by the surrounding culture we live in, even if we deliberately flaunt them and/or overplay them.
Men are seen as either overly strong and powerful, always in control, never panicked or confused or as the weak, pathetic submissive male that has somehow lost is "true" masculine nature and abilities.
Women, for their part, are presented as overly cute, docile, submissive women eager to please, sometimes bratty as a way of acting out or as overly domineering, pushy, in control women that have usurped the male position for their own.
Because of the need to keep their reputations intact, it is difficult, I feel, for men and women who are dominant to come out and say that they also like to switch roles on occasion. I'll point back to J as an example of this, to an extent. I'd be willing to bet that a fair number of people here did not realize that he wasn't exclusively a top.
On the other hand, submissive women have it fairly easy. It's seen as "cute" if they want to try the other side of the whip. Submissive men, too, appear to have an easier time picking up the whip...though it can have some bad effects as well.
We see behavior that is close to the community stereotypes because, to an extent, it's what we expect to see. We play with gender and roles and who does what all the time. Those stereotypes present us with anchor reference points, regardless of whether they are "good" or "bad" stereotypes. Stepping away from "expected" behavior in any community is difficult. That goes for ours as well as expected behavior in the vanilla world.
I've been in the position of having to stifle the desires I had to switch roles because it made my partner uncomfortable to think that I had power and control. As his slave, that was unthinkable to him because I could then challenge his power and control. So I pushed that part away and tried to become what a "submissive" or "slave" should be like. It's only been in the last 4 years, with a new owner, that I've been able to explore that side of myself in a safe environment where it wasn't a challenge to his ownership of me. It doesn't bother him in the least, because he knows that he can control me when he wants. Regardless of whether I'm feeling submissive or whether I'm in a more dominant headspace than normal.
To a degree, we *expect* men to either behave in the overly dominant powerful role or the overly submissive, groveling role. Watching a male sub break away from that and stride around in his own power can be an intimidating site, both for other male doms and for female doms who might not be able to control this particular male.
Do they exsit?? Most certainly. Is it easier for them to hide under the guise of "switch" or "dom"? Yes. As a switch, I am likely to flag dom when I'm out alone. It's easier than explaining why I'm not flagging sub and fending off the clueless who think they can order me around simply because they're dom.
- perrin wrote:
It's up to them if they want to do that. I do think in 95% of cases, the people that do this are role-playing and hopefully with appropriate aftercare. I do not think it says anything about his physical strength, his mental strength or strength of personality. He could be a pro wrestler, a company director, he could be well socially developed and able to hold an audience enthralled with tales of daring do. He may well be able to kick the average male dom's arse or beat him in a debating competition. This is irrelevant to his submission or the way it manifests itself.
Absolutely. And if that's the case and that's what they both like, then more power to them for living what makes them happy.
It still may be difficult for people to understand from outside of that particular mindset, however. I get the same reaction when I talk about gunplay. At the seminar I did on edge play, one of the audience members just could not wrap his head around why someone would want to play with a deadly weapon when doing a scene. He, however, liked to play with knives and cut people.
Now, you and I both know that knives are a deadly weapon, the same as a gun. But in *his* mind, the knife wasn't "deadly". You could argue that his understanding was flawed and could create dangerous situations for those around him, and you may even be right. But it illustrates how the observer's mind may not understand things the same what that those involved in the play understand it.
For myself, with the problems I have with humiliation, the groveling worm style of play does not "click". I don't understand it and every bone of my body screams that it's *very* dangerous to the sub if not handled correctly. Far more dangerous that sticking a prepared gun into someone's wabblie bits. Because *for* *me*, it is. That doesn't mean that they're wrong and I'm right...it means that in my world I don't understand what they're doing and can't be a part of it or perform it.
And that's ok.
- perrin wrote:
Perhaps the inference being made is that it *his desire* to make himself as low as possible in submission that makes him a weak person. As though this is a flaw in his psyche that makes him less of a person. This is bullshit.
Yes, it is. And I don't think that J meant to imply that the submissives in those cases are flawed. J can correct me if that's not the case. From what has been said, it strikes me that the style of submission being discussed just isn't an option for him and that makes it difficult to understand why others want to do it. And that he sees it fairly often. Often enough that what he considers his style of service stands out as being different from the norm.
Where I'm at, you don't see many male subs *at* *all* playing. You may see people flagging sub, and I've been approached by one or two when flagging dom to compliment me on this or that. The bulk of the playing, however, at the socials I attend, are male dom/fem sub.
- perrin wrote:
As soon as we have examples of men going against their social conditioning we have the same people who railed against female social conditioning damning the men and calling them weak.
Going back to male stereotypes again, they do appear "weak". That's neither bad nor good, just a description of appearance. It's also not the only point to submit from...but there are a number of people out there that *do* play that way.
- perrin wrote:
Just how weak is a person who overcomes his lifetime of being told that he must behave in a certain way? I personally think it takes a deal of strength to submit to another person, to give up all his power to another out of his own will.
So long as it's a choice that the individual makes, they're not weak. They may or may not be exhibiting weak behavior. As opposed to flagging "strong".
