shadoe wrote:
*Natural* and/or *chosen* submission are equally valid - someone's psyche, both emotional and intellectual, is being laid on the line. That deserves equal respect. No matter which side of the fence... walking the walk takes a ton of strength of character.
I think that any submissive opens himself/herself to a far greater risk of rejection than the standard vanilla lover. And being willing to assume that extra risk requires an enormous amount of courage.
The reason that the risk is greater is because the submissive is putting far more of himself/herself "on the line" by revealing to his/her Dominant whatever it is which creates that submissive nature and need; whatever it is which allows him/her to deliberately reveal that "weak spot" for the Dominant to use and control.
I believe most sincerely there are two kinds of submissive. One is the person perfectly in control of his/her own life who seeks emotional fulfilment by giving up that control to a Dominant. The other is the person unable to control his/her own life who seeks emotional security by having a Dominant bring order and control into his/her life.
Some might call the one a "strong" submissive and the other a "weak" submissive.
I think both types have to be strong enough to recognize their own particular need, and to give effect to that need -- even at the expense and risk of exposing their deepest psyches to their Dominants.
Frankly I am still unsure as to which partner actually actually has the stronger character: the Dominant or the submissive. Obviously it varies from person to person, from relationship to relationship.
But broadly speaking, and given my belief that a submissive has more to risk emotionally when entering a relationship (because he/she is revealing so much to the Dominant of his/her emotional needs) I think the sub needs more strength of character than the Dom.
Nick {c}