Who says you have to be submissive?

Please read on...

Who says you have to be submissive?

If a woman reacts strongly against being described as submissive, and delights in having a commanding presence but likes it when a man takes charge with her, is she “dominant [but] in denial”, as Bill P. suggested, submissive but in denial, or just plain confused? If she enjoys expressing all the different aspects of her personality and feels exuberant and free when with a man who appreciates all of her instead of wanting her to express only one bit of herself, is she marvellously multidimensional or in need of psychiatric help?

Those women with an aversion to being (metaphorically as opposed to literally) pinned down think about these things the way others think about football or world hunger.

In a comment on Taken In Hand, Scarlett wrote:

In D/s, there's almost a parallel “gender” created, the dominant and submissive

When I read that, I was struck by the thought that the way I'd prefer to interact in a relationship would be more DD than D/s, as in “dominant-dominant”.

Preferring naturally dominant men, I have sometimes attempted to think of myself as being submissive—but that label just doesn't fit. Not at all. Not even remotely. For some women, submission can feel liberating and exciting and they feel anything but diminished by it. That is marvellous! But when I read the wonderful writings of such women, no matter how beautiful the style and no matter what the content is, I just can't relate to it. And nor could I remain happy and vibrant with a man who wanted me to give him submission. Apparently I am not alone in this. This inability to identify with the “submissive” label appears to be characteristic of the taken in hand woman.

Several women have said that when a man likes only their soft, feminine side, or wants them always to dress that way, or tells them never to cut their long hair, or expects mindless obedience and a submissive attitude at all times, they find it off-putting. Not only do those things feel like a push towards the stale boredom of stereotypical womanhood and a static, lifeless relationship, they feel like a push to eviscerate a valuable part of the woman's personality: the dominant, effective, assertive, even masculine side.

Dominant and strong I may be, but the last thing I want is to dominate a man. Whilst I have the greatest respect for non-dominant, submissive men, I am not drawn to them as men. I want a man even more dominant than I. A man who exerts control as a natural part of his personality. And whilst I am not at all the fighting sort, in the event that there are any conflicts, I want the man to win. I want the man to be in control—but not by requiring of me that I shut down half my personality and become unnaturally submissive, and not by requiring that I diminish myself in any way.

This is not about being in denial, it is about recognising the reality and examining the implications. If you have a dominant, strong, masculine personality, and you can't relate to the little girl idea, attempting to see yourself as a submissive little girl is asking for trouble. To have a good relationship, you have to relate to one another as the individuals you are, not as the individuals you think you ought to be. A relationship requiring that you enact fixed stereotypical roles is bound to be handicapped and a handicap to your own individual growth.

So if you think you may be falling into the mistake of damping down your dominant, masculine side, challenge your assumption that that is necessary or in any way desirable. It simply isn't true that if you want a dominant man, you have to be submissive. You can both be dominant!

You may think that with two dominant personalities what you'd have is one almighty power struggle but that is not necessarily so. It depends. Do the dominant characteristics of each person arise out of weakness or out of strength? If the former, there is bound to be a power struggle; if the latter, any struggles there may be are likely to be fun rather than destructive. If both individuals need to “win” to increase their self-esteem or protect their fragile ego, there may well be problems. But if they each appreciate and even encourage the dominant, masculine side of the other and they broadly feel in accord with one another about how to run their relationship (for example, at least one of them does not want to “win”), and they share a sense of fun in their interactions, they may well have a blast together.

Recognising that expressing your dominant, masculine side need not be a threat, and need not lead to fights, but may lead to a deeper, more exciting, more fulfilling relationship is liberating. It frees you from the psychological tyranny of self-imposed pseudo-submission. It frees you to be fully yourself. It frees you to interact as the person you are. And contrary to what you might think if you are in certain sections of BDSM sub-culture, many naturally dominant men prefer naturally strong, dominant women, because if a woman is obviously strong, the man can relax and not worry that his strength will overwhelm her, just as is the case in reverse.

These liberating insights can free women from the thought that they are lacking in femininity or that they need to act or become more submissive. Once you feel free to embrace and express the dominant/masculine aspects of yourself, you are no longer fighting a battle for control of your personality. And when you stop waging that war on yourself, you are bound to lose the defensiveness that is inevitably associated with that sort of inner conflict. This can bring a deep and abiding sense of peace. Paradoxically, this peacefulness can give the woman a softness that seems exquisitely feminine.

Who says that if you want a dominant man, you have to suppress your dominant side and be submissive?!

http://www.takeninhand.com/node/260