"Real" Submission

I posted the following in my YahooGroup a few days ago. Over the next day or so I'll post some of the interesting comments that followed my sharing of these thoughts.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Earlier tonight, I read a comment in which someone was explaining what a "genuine submissive" would do in a particular situation. The crux of the statement was, if you're a genuine well-trained submissive, you won't be that effected by your own orgasm.

First of all, whenever I read the phrase "a real submissive" (a real Domme, etc) or something similiar, I want to bang my head on something hard. Well, actually, I want to bang someone else's head on something hard ;) (Now you know I'm just kidding ... sort of). Frequently I'll hear people in the D/s, LFA (Loving Female Authority), BDSM lifestyles profess they think the vanilla world should loosen up and be more open-minded to alternative ways of looking at things - yet often they are just as quick to create a different but equally constrictive box within the lifestyle. Is there such a thing as a "real" Domme or a "real" submissive? If there is, I want to know who set the definition :)

There are varying degrees of most things in life and I believe there are varying degrees of submission. One is not more or less real than the others, they're just different.

Essentially, I think "real submission" is whatever two people (a dominant partner and a submissive partner) decide it is - as long as there is *some* level of power exchange. I may want less from someone than say a hard core Domme who wants a total slave. Does that mean someone who serves me isn't a submissive and someone who gives up all their rights to someone else is? I certainly don't believe so.

On another note, when someone says that "genuine submission" shouldn't be motivated by the male's sexual urges but should be solely motivated by his desire to please the Lady, aren't we sending mixed messages here? So many support male chastity because they say it increases the male's submissiveness. Are we thinking the male is more docile and more attentive because the less sex he gets, the more he's NOT going to want it and the more he's NOT going to think about it? Hmm... maybe for some, but it's been my experience it just increases the desire and the thoughts of sex. (Ask any man how long it has been since the last time he had sex and/or masturbated. Most can tell you to the day. If they're in a locked device, almost every one can tell you how long it has been.)

Yes, during periods of chastity, even short ones, the focus does turn more to the woman who is controlling her cock (well his, but you know what I mean - I love knowing that it is my cock to do with whatever I wish). In my opinion, this is a *channeling* of his sexual desires, not an elimination of it. Yes, a submissive man desires to please and he has sexual urges as well - urges he wants to have controlled. Personally, I like knowing I can elicit both and control both ;)

Lastly, I do not think it is truly possible for a submissive to be selfless. To be sure there are a few acts in life that are selfless, but for the most part, we do things because we get something out of it. "All behavior is purposeful." If a submissive is motivated to please, then he feel good about the acts he's done to please the Domme - sexual or otherwise. It fulfills something that is a part of him and I think this is wonderful. No one questions him about feeling good about doing it or questions the genuineness of his submission. If he does something, however, to please the Domme and it arouses him... why is this not genuine submission as well? Somehow, it seems a few people have associated the term submissive with selflessness and I don't think it's the same.

I'm ok with the fact that he "gets" something out of his submission. To me, this does not detract from his gift at all as long as his motivation is something that I can accept. After all I can quite easily control not only his actions but his motives as well ;)