A true submissives nature.

[Deleted Member]

I'm not sure what makes a true submissive, but i know it when I see it. It's more like I feel it. The very thought of a true submissives respect stirs something in me. And I don't think it can be manufactured. It can be learned through time, maybe, but the essence, emotion, and power that exudes from the mear word "Sir" is astounding.

[ge****]

There is no such thing as a "true" submissive, same as there's no such thing as a "true" dominant - we each have our own definitions of what a particular role means to us, and it's finding those that match our definition which is key.
.
It doesn't mean that others who don't match aren't "true" or "real" just that they're not for us.

[Th****]

Whenever I hear anyone who identifies as a Dominant talking about "true submissives" it gives me the icks, and I'm saying this as a D type myself. 

[Sh****]

Every dynamic will be different, and we will all have different thoughts on what makes a sub a sub. There is no one size fits all approach to BDSM so terms like true sub or true Dom aren’t even remotely helpful, actually, it’s the opposite you’re implying varies, one definitive and “correct“ approach to these roles. As a relative newcomer to BDSM it’s all the unique ways, dynamics, and relationships can unfold that makes kink so appealing.

[CopperKnob]

I'll.make a suggestion, figure out what D/s means to you. What are your wants/needs in such a relationship? Once you know that, you know what you're looking for.
It's about who matches your ideals nor about being a "true" anything.

[bi****]

lol you got it all wrong dude 🤦‍♂️

[Ln****]

I think I understand what you are getting at, but maybe you are expressing it wrong. A submissive that is exactly that does have a certain way that it tends to work, but these folks are right in saying dynamics can vary...so maybe not a "true sub" as much as a sub may be a natural sub as it does just seem to be in some sub's nature.. Serving their Dom does something for them that they can't be fully happy without.

[Ro****]

Please avoid using "true"sub/dom as that can be diminishing to those who desires to be and find some happiness in it but struggle to find the right compatibility. However, I do agree there's some who have a natural knack to one side of the coin or the other.
Personally, I feel I'm a natural submissive, not a "true" submissive. However, I have the capacity to stick my foot up a "true" doms ass, if the occasion requires it. I had to learn that. It took an unhealthy marriage and raised three ***agers as a single mom to adulthood to learn it.
I'm happiest with in submissive mode but don't f*ck with me. I'm not a doormat.

[delight_of_life]

There is a True Dom and a True sub, and a True path.  The terms is used in the lifestyle to denote following the BDSM lifestyle as it was originally intended and formed, by David Stein who first coined the phrase SSC back in the 80's, during the first BDSM and Leather community's appearances.  In the Traditional BDSM lifestyle there are set rules and guidelines for conduct and honor whose value has never lessened even though the "New Age" lifestyle has since contorted and diluted it to fit and accommodate the newer generation's preference to behave however they like.  A great deal of the New Age practices ignore the strictions of the Older ones, and an unhealthy influx of untrained, uneducated, undedicated people have introduced teachings that are not accurate, not safe, not sane, and not even sensible. Many new "categories" of roles have been created out of the blue, in order to suit those unwilling to make the effort  and spend the necessary tie and energy to achieve the Traditional level of "True".  True, as in authentic, original.  The True ones are now so very rare that the lifestyle population in general don't even recognize them when they see them, and instead shun them and accuse them/us of being narrowminded and out-of-date.  Well, you know what?  We ARE narrowminded and out-of-date.  But that certainly doesn't mean we are wrong, or no longer valuable.  If you seriously, truly, desire to know the lifestyle as it's meant to be lived, and find that astounding level of depth and meaning that so many today have no clue exists, then do yourself a large favor and actually research what this really all means and what it is meant to be. Below the surface.  Seek out and speak with the Ones of tradition, and you will quickly see the difference.  i wish you all most well.

~ delight_of_life 

[ge****]

9 hours ago, delight_of_life said:

There is a True Dom and a True sub, and a True path.  The terms is used in the lifestyle to denote following the BDSM lifestyle as it was originally intended and formed, by David Stein who first coined the phrase SSC back in the 80's, during the first BDSM and Leather community's appearances.  In the Traditional BDSM lifestyle there are set rules and guidelines for conduct and honor whose value has never lessened even though the "New Age" lifestyle has since contorted and diluted it to fit and accommodate the newer generation's preference to behave however they like.  A great deal of the New Age practices ignore the strictions of the Older ones, and an unhealthy influx of untrained, uneducated, undedicated people have introduced teachings that are not accurate, not safe, not sane, and not even sensible. Many new "categories" of roles have been created out of the blue, in order to suit those unwilling to make the effort  and spend the necessary tie and energy to achieve the Traditional level of "True".  True, as in authentic, original.  The True ones are now so very rare that the lifestyle population in general don't even recognize them when they see them, and instead shun them and accuse them/us of being narrowminded and out-of-date.  Well, you know what?  We ARE narrowminded and out-of-date.  But that certainly doesn't mean we are wrong, or no longer valuable.  If you seriously, truly, desire to know the lifestyle as it's meant to be lived, and find that astounding level of depth and meaning that so many today have no clue exists, then do yourself a large favor and actually research what this really all means and what it is meant to be. Below the surface.  Seek out and speak with the Ones of tradition, and you will quickly see the difference.  i wish you all most well.

~ delight_of_life 

The trouble with that is it makes generalisations and suppositions about a lifestyle that has continuously evolved since long before the 80's and the period that you refer to.

BDSM has been about for centuries in one form or another so to claim a definition set in the 80s is wide of the mark in my opinion - and to tale that a step further to suggest a single definition as being the only "true" way is even wider of the mark.
.
The *only* definition that holds good is the one each of us hold for ourselves and agrees with those we engage with - and so long as it is formed from a position of knowledge, consent, and understanding of risks etc then I am not going to suggest *any* path someone chooses to define for themselves is wrong - it may not be my path, but it's just as "true" as my path.
.
Sure there are commonly held definitions at a very high level that conform to a general definition of what is "true" or not, but at a specific individual level there are many definitions none of them less true than others.

[delight_of_life]

Yes Sir @gemini_man.  As You said, there are many intricacies in every relationship that differ from any other, and a custom fit is needed each time.  But a holding on to the concept and intent of the lifestyle, in every one of them, that being SSC - Safe, Sane and Consensual, must apply.  The acronym itself is a wide umbrella, and each of its components are wide umbrellas of their own.  SSC and the 7 Pillars are the basis to conduct oneself by and be intelligently adhered to.  If a situation falls outside of the umbrella of SSC, that doesnt "necessarily" make it a crime (although some argument can be made in some cases on that), it just makes it no longer true BDSM.  (Do what you will, but unless you are in compliance, do not call it BDSM.) In a lifestyle this diverse, of course the very high levels of guidelines must be a generalization.  But as it filters down into the many many different details and variations of kink, the top rule of SSC always applies and needs to be followed, or people get harmed, oftentimes seriously harmed.  There is a reason for it.  No It is not a single and only definition, as there are other acronyms that have been since added such as RISK and CNC, but even these also fall under the umbrella of SSC. which is the defining factor of the general "official" organization, and what sets it apart from unruled and chaotic, even heinous acts inflicted upon human victims throughout human history.

I agree that "BDSM" has been around longer than the 1980s. It was only "publicly" proclaimed in that particular decade by Stein and His group in the US.  It has been practiced widely in every corner of the world in many forms. In fact it is as old as mankind itself, entrenched in our basic ***istic drives.  We couldn't get away from it if we tried, and be truly whole.  Vanillas are merely socially repressed souls who are too locked in their upbringing and the society around them to know the freedom to be found in their natural states.

So, we are saying the same thing here i believe, and thank You Sir for pointing out that the higher level ideals are in fact a generalization, as in they are an umbrella that covers and applies down to the far reaches of all of the many diversities.

delight_of_life

[ge****]

3 hours ago, delight_of_life said:

Yes Sir @gemini_man.  As You said, there are many intricacies in every relationship that differ from any other, and a custom fit is needed each time.  But a holding on to the concept and intent of the lifestyle, in every one of them, that being SSC - Safe, Sane and Consensual, must apply.  The acronym itself is a wide umbrella, and each of its components are wide umbrellas of their own.  SSC and the 7 Pillars are the basis to conduct oneself by and be intelligently adhered to.  If a situation falls outside of the umbrella of SSC, that doesnt "necessarily" make it a crime (although some argument can be made in some cases on that), it just makes it no longer true BDSM.  (Do what you will, but unless you are in compliance, do not call it BDSM.) In a lifestyle this diverse, of course the very high levels of guidelines must be a generalization.  But as it filters down into the many many different details and variations of kink, the top rule of SSC always applies and needs to be followed, or people get harmed, oftentimes seriously harmed.  There is a reason for it.  No It is not a single and only definition, as there are other acronyms that have been since added such as RISK and CNC, but even these also fall under the umbrella of SSC. which is the defining factor of the general "official" organization, and what sets it apart from unruled and chaotic, even heinous acts inflicted upon human victims throughout human history.

I agree that "BDSM" has been around longer than the 1980s. It was only "publicly" proclaimed in that particular decade by Stein and His group in the US.  It has been practiced widely in every corner of the world in many forms. In fact it is as old as mankind itself, entrenched in our basic ***istic drives.  We couldn't get away from it if we tried, and be truly whole.  Vanillas are merely socially repressed souls who are too locked in their upbringing and the society around them to know the freedom to be found in their natural states.

So, we are saying the same thing here i believe, and thank You Sir for pointing out that the higher level ideals are in fact a generalization, as in they are an umbrella that covers and applies down to the far reaches of all of the many diversities.

delight_of_life

I agree that SSC, along with RACK, PRICK etc are all very good guidelines however they alone do not define what is a "true" dominant or submissive and that was my point - as your original post appeared to suggest they did. 
.
I personally think it's important to make it clear that there is no such thing as a "true" anything - not to argue a point but for the benefit of those that may be told (as we hear regularly) they are "not a true submissive/dominant" by those that seek to exploit them.

[Ar****]

5 hours ago, delight_of_life said:

Vanillas are merely socially repressed souls who are too locked in their upbringing and the society around them to know the freedom to be found in their natural states.

Or, y'know, maybe it just isn't for them? BDSM/kink doesn't offer something or appeal to everybody. That's okay, and for a community that supposedly values not being judgemental this is a disappointingly disparaging - even snobbish (vanillas aren't "merely" anything) - comment.

[delight_of_life]

32 minutes ago, Aranhis said:

Or, y'know, maybe it just isn't for them? BDSM/kink doesn't offer something or appeal to everybody. That's okay, and for a community that supposedly values not being judgemental this is a disappointingly disparaging - even snobbish (vanillas aren't "merely" anything) - comment.

You are absolutely correct!  i should not have put that word in the statement at all.  Point well taken, and i apologize!  

delight_of_life