July 11, 2020

Humbled Females: new forum reply to When submission shifts

New reply from teejayel

<p>To paraphrase emergingessence, she feels that her submission has shifted from being intellectual to emotional, that she no longer views being subservient as intellectually as she used to… not as “outside” of herself, but simply more of an internal feeling, "which makes it harder to explain, since words and intellect no longer seem to do it justice." </p>
<p>That's quite interesting and I think almost the reverse of the impression I gained of my significant other. I think it might have its origin in where the female starts on the "dominance submission curve" the strength of her sexual instincts and the degree of her self-awareness. </p>
<p>Could I guess that her starting point was an <em>awareness that submission turned her on</em>, thus intellectualizing that need and seeking to fulfil it. With a relationship then achieved based on that, she is conscious of making acts of submission <em>as an aim</em>. As the relationship grows, this becomes more by habit than design. She is no longer seeking it, indeed no longer has to; it simply happens, and is reinforced by instinct and repetitious habit. This is rather like at first consciously (as we all do now) needing to learn to type, then progressing to the stage where we instinctively, pre-intellectually know where the letters are, such that typing becomes part of us and it's impossible to intellectualize the process of how it has happened or how it's possible that we type so fast, because it no longer involves a high level mental process.</p>
<p><strong>In other words, she knows what she wants, gets it, then finds she no longer has to think about it as it's an intrinsic part of her life. </strong></p>
<p><strong>Comparing what she wanted and was with what she now is, is a reflection on how a desire has become a reality.</strong></p>
<p>By contrast, my "significant other" intellectually was of academic orientation, with no especial consciousness of self or developed understanding of her sexuality or instincts, although with a healthy appreciation of sexuality in literature and theatre. She would never have dreamed of seeking out a site like this even had it existed back then. In her case our relationship started of itself, and I was gently able to guide her down the path of her sexuality by an iterative process which drew on her pre-intellectual sexual instincts and only rationalized for her what had happened after the event. Or to put it another way a woman will often permit much that you couldn't either ask her for or get her to admit she desires until after the event. Leading a more shy, reserved female gives her "permission" to enjoy her sexuality.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I did have an agenda, knew what I wanted, knew to tailor it to the person (different person, very different outcome) and found that I was able to develop her response. So when we played about with a costume choker when she was in evening wear, she found it sexy, whereas I knew that I intended to put her in a dog collar and wanted to encourage that sexy feeling. When I did just that, fully a year later, she found it sexy and "cheeky." After sex, when I persuaded her to let me take a head and shoulders photo, she allowed me, but was uncertain and a bit confused. But when I produced a chain, leashed her, pulled back the bedclothes and <em>told</em> her I was going to take a photo it brought about a profound change. What had been "sexy" became instant biddable submission that it was clear she had no idea was inside her. Deep emotions were unleashed that did not sit with her intellectualized view of herself as vaguely left-leaning, feminist (in the good sense) and educated. In her case, rationalization came after the event, not before it. Habit built. She got used to being put into or seduced into being put in the collar. It became part of her sexuality, but was still in her gift to grant as a favour. But the first time she <em>asked</em> to be put in <em>her</em> collar was the last time she had that freedom. I told her and she agreed that she would no longer be asked. I expanded her experience. Although I had sexily and light-heatedly introduced the term "slave training" into the lexicon, I never used the term slave, or property. Came the day that, she having been naked and collared all day, I summarized what had developed between us and achieved a series of consents where she agreed I was free to use any orifice, to collar, spank, tie, whip or chain her, to photograph her in any condition (and own the photographs) that she would be available at any time, would not be consulted and would never know in advance how how she would be used. I then put her on her knees to suck me and proposed as she did so, coming after she said, "you bastard, yes!". The intellectualizing, the formal consent, came <em>after</em> the emotional journey and the practice. If I had even then said "you are now my property" she would have fielded intellectual resistance. But the effect of her consents is clear.</p>
<p>A few years later, after I had chained her over a stool (gently) to whip and photograph her and mentioned that I ought to chain her over my work-mate, she suggested that if chained her spread-eagled backwards over it it would increase her humiliation and degradation and make a better picture for me. A year later, I did, making sure that she had a peg on her tongue and a pinch-tag hanging from her labium to ensure more was taken that offered and that she felt arousal from <em>true</em> humiliation, beyond her expectation; because though her volunteered submission was lovely, her right to choice was forfeit by her consent and she should feel no sense of control, dignity or integrity. </p>
<p>There was one more step. This was still unique, romantic "us" (and so it was). But, after a UK ban that had lasted 25 years I showed her the film of the book Story of O, which I had read long before (and she hadn't). She understood <em>and I made clear</em> that although it was only one to one, only us, that she had been trained with a technique that could be applied to any woman and, although my soul-mate and life-partner, I also regarded her in common with <em>any other female</em> who had been trained and had consented in similar fashion. She and they were in a subordinate unequal class and in principle (though not in <em>our</em> practice) submitted before all. (This mind set in any case suffused her behaviour. She was always sweet and even in her professional life achieved her aims by being polite and reasonable, never by being assertive. That reflex was gone).</p>
<p>This concerned her. She was worried that I was no longer aroused by or in love with her, only aroused by, and in love with, her submission. I was able to reassure her that this was not true in my case, and that it didn't matter because they were not two things; there was only one expression of our relationship and one place for her to dwell within it: naked and leashed. I saw her as a complete person, loved soul-mate and intellect with huge qualities, but these qualities were enhanced through the prism of her complete submission as my sex object and that was just as much a part of her. I also pointed out that whilst not true for me, it <em>was</em> true for her. She by now found becoming aroused difficult except when collared and chained, when she was <em>instantly</em> wet . But it was what I had wanted for her and had aimed for. </p>
<p>I now wanted to complete the intellectual process. She should now consider herself my property, as a leashed female chattel; her flesh for my consumption. We had always erotically, romantically, even humorously talked of her conditioning and training as "slave training". She would from now on carry tags on her collar making her status clear <em>and to the extent she needed to</em> <em>she should now adjust to this</em>.</p>
<p>There were two tags. The first read, "<em><strong>XXXX</strong>, Born XX.XX.19XX. Property of XXXX.  Slave training from 19XX. Owned (1) Wedlock XX.XX.19XX (2) Absolute title XX.XX.XXXX. Lubricates slowly. <strong>Keep in collar</strong>. Should be <strong>chained, shaved, whipped</strong>. Enjoys corset. Poses and masturbates willingly. Has genital tag. Not yet pierced. <strong>Ensure regular and mixed use of all orifices (sequentially in any order)</strong>; ensure fellates to ejaculation. <strong>Trained for completely passive and obedient response; service slave: need not bring to orgasm.</strong> Keep subservient.</em>" </p>
<p>Before attaching it to her collar I asked her if there was <em>anything</em> written which was not emotionally true. She quietly shook her head. I pointed out that the tag not only said what was true about her, but described her <em>as if to a third party</em>. She nodded. I said, "I do not promise that this will never be seen by a third party." She gasped, then remembered her consent: photos of her belonged to me and were nothing to do with her. At a bus stop we had once discovered a Polaroid of a naked girl that had been dropped there. I had joked that maybe I ought to drop a picture of her there. She had not been shocked by the discarded photo and smiled at the fantasy. After all I'd taken many non-Polaroid photos of her naked and had them processed as a rite of passage for her. She knew she had no right not to be seen naked (although not the obligation).</p>
<p>The reverse of the tag carried a picture of her on her back, wrists chained under her knees, with a tag at her labium. The second tag showed a second picture of the same and on the reverse a picture of her from the rear, kneeling, head down, legs wide apart, between leg chained, staring back at a naked figurene hanging between her legs. She had never especially wanted to see the pictures I had taken of her (except a certain fascination at one showing her contentedly asleep the first time she was collared overnight). Now they would be an intrinsic part of her daily condition. As I said, nothing has changed, but now it has a name. You've loved and consented, in effect as <strong><em>my</em></strong> property. Now you'll <em>consciously</em> live and be marked as <em><strong>property</strong> </em>that <em>happens</em> to belong to me, however much loved. </p>
<p><strong>In other words, she gets what she needs, then has to think about it as it's now an intrinsic part of her life, before she too no longer has to think about it.  </strong></p>
<p><strong>Comparing what she was with what she now is, by contrast with the first example, is a reflection on how profoundly her outlook, she, has changed.</strong></p>


Original Post by emergingessence

When submission shifts

<p>I don’t know if this makes sense or is even a thing. Hopefully it is.</p>
<p>I’m hoping to perhaps discuss or hear from those with experience or opinions about the shift from when submission moves from being intellectual to emotional. </p>
<p>A shift has been occurring for me for a little while and I didn’t know what it was. This morning it occurred to me that I no longer seem to view being subservient as intellectually as I used to… not as “outside” of myself. Now it seems to have become simply more of an internal feeling. Which in turn makes it so much more difficult to try to explain anything anymore. So often now I find myself responding to something and it just seems to fall so short of the depth of everything I feel. Words and intellect no longer seems to do it justice.</p>
<p>It’s difficult to understand if  this a “normal (common) process” or if I have potentially just become complacent.</p>

No comments yet.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.