Excerpt from a Submissive vs Doormat Debate
M says : -
It is wrong to assume that just because someone has a passive nature it means they would be a submissive in the BDSM sense of the word. And I would argue that the doormat type, (and I will continue to use that word to distinguish them from natural BDSM submissives) is more a result of nurture than nature. They are damaged, most often as children. They need to properly resolve their past, un-muddy the waters of their life, before they are clear enough to see that they can enter a BDSM relationship without it being a perpetuation of their past. I hope that no Dom, whether Top or Master, would feel happy knowing that they are perpetuating past abuse or feeding low self-esteem, but many are so keen to get themselves a sub that they would overlook the signs and even make excuses for them. The consent this type of "submissive" gives is not informed consent unless they are shown that there are other options available to them. See except below :
Excerpt from "Consent Definition", posted to ASB 26 Mar 1994
"I had no viable option not to be a sadist. Many submissives had no viable option to choose not to be submissive. Those people in need of love or attention or who suffer from low self-esteem (the one's that we are said to be searching for so that we might exploit them) are, ironically, among those who do have other options, though they may not realize it, and I would agree that if one comes to realize that a person is involved in BDSM for those reasons, they should offer them what help they can to make them aware that they have other options, and to help them overcome those problems, because I do want to know, should I choose to play with a person, that they have chosen BDSM after careful consideration of all the options that were available to them. However, we must be realistic about how much we can help another person, and remember that the fact a person could benefit from our help does not mean that we are entitled to violate their rights in order to help them. We should also recall that when a person has found a way to deal with their problems, even one that is not optimal, it may not be a kindness to take that away from them before we have provided them with another means. "
From what I have gleaned from your blog and your sub's, she is a natural submissive. She, herself, says she was strong as a child and strong as an adult. To then have a need to give that strength/power over to someone else makes her a natural submissive. Anyone can dominate a doormat, everyone is perceived as being stronger than them, but a natural submissive seeks the One, a special someone, One stronger than them to whom they can entrust their own power/strength.
If I was to propose that the men who subjugate their partners, make them feel worthless, and beat them about, were natural dominants how would that make you feel? They are as naturally dominant as doormats are naturally submissive. Shall we bring them into the fold as well? You could argue that they were dominant with a small D. Unfortunately "submissive" will never have a capital "S". Or maybe we could say that they are dominant but that's not the same as being a lifestyle Dominant. So the same can be said for doormats, they are submissive but that's not the same as being a lifestyle submissive.
Sometimes I see people who "trained" as subs, then decided that maybe they were actually Domme and changed direction. I find myself wondering if they were doormats who, through a therapeutic nature in their relationship, found their feet and reclaimed their power. It would probably be better for them to enter back into vanilla life at this new-found level but once they have experienced the thrill of the lifestyle it is probably too hard to go back to a regular life, so they become Dommes.
The following excerpts tend to make it sound that the dominant is the one who would take advantage of someone with low self esteem and completely overlooks the fact that equally their partner maybe have manipulated them into a position to repeat past wrongs. It does however serve to point out that the "wrong type" of "natural submissive" do find their way into the lifestyle. . The line "If you have issues around your personal sense of self-worth" seems to suggest a personal awareness that, in my professional experience, is not actually present in a doormat type. Please also ignore the word "play". "Play" and "scene" have a feeling of role and pretence about them but they are accepted words in the lifestyle and so we are stuck with them.
Excerpt From Sexuality.org
"One especially charged kind of D/S play is dominance and submission, in which the bottom gives up some of their freedom of choice to the top, who can command them. Though many people with strong boundaries can play like this perfectly safely (and indeed derive enormous happiness and satisfaction from doing it), this kind of play can carry some real emotional risks for people with low self-esteem. The risk is that the dominant will wind up abusing their power, using the D/S dynamic to make the submissive feel ever more worthless and powerless, and hence willing to let the dominant take over more of their independence
If you have issues around your personal sense of self-worth, and if you feel that being submissive (albeit perhaps an enticing idea) might serve to confirm and consolidate your negative self-image, you would do well to think hard about whether D/S play is for you at this stage of your life. The answer may well be "no." (And conversely, if you are considering topping someone who wants to submit because they deserve no better, you might consider whether you want a partner who thinks so little of themselves.) In general, it's imperative for everyone who does SM to look hard at their motivations and their boundaries, and to be clear on whether the SM (whatever form it may take) is self-actualizing or self-destructive. "
"BDSM may at times be theraputic, but it is in no sense a substitute for therapy. It's been said that "you can't take power from the powerless." A healthy D/S relationship is grounded in mutual respect, and in the knowledge that both partners are choosing this life in a fully informed, non-coerced manner; the submissive is proud to submit, and the dominant is proud to receive the gift of their submission. It is a very different thing from an abusive relationship in which one partner controls the other partner's entire world, with the goal of making that partner irrevocably and helplessly dependent. "
To clarify another term, abuse does not necessarily mean physical harm. There is also emotional and psychological abuse that goes to create an adult with low self-esteem. The belief that they are not good enough, deserve nothing, or do not have the ability to cope with life.
A natural submissive is saying "Here is my power, I'm entrusting it to you as a gift" or "being in control can be wearing at times, I need someone I can trust to hold the power and give me release from it"
A doormat is saying "hold me up, sort out my life and in return you can do what you want with me" or "being like this is all I know, I need someone who will let me stay like this"
The former is a healthy relationship, the latter is not.
P says :-
I have read your document and I think there is much that we can agree on. Let's see how close we can get (You may be surprised by this but I really don't get off on conflict).
I think some of the mis-communication comes from how we each define things.
You summarise a doormat as someone who gives their power away to anyone who demands it, and a submissive as someone who gives their power away to a single person, through informed consent. So by the way you have defined things a submissive cannot be a doormat and a doormat cannot be a submissive.
I think of this slightly differently. I see a spectrum of submissiveness, from those that will submit non-selectively to other people around them (your "doormat"), to those that will only submit on a highly selective basis. All of these share the common trait of submissiveness (as the term is understood generally - not in a strict bdsm sense). So "doormat" are included in my spectrum of submissives. Off the cuff, here would be my spectrum:
Extreme submissive ("Doormat") - Submits readily to anyone who demands it. Tends to operate from position of low self-esteem and does not make informed choices about who to submit to.
Natural submissive - Naturally inclined to submit to others and makes healthy informed choices about who to submit to and how much. More likely to display a level of submissiveness in daily life.
Elective submissive - Not naturally inclined to submit to others - does so on a selective basis, possibly as a counterpoint to her vanilla life. Less likely to display a level of submissiveness in daily life.
So rather than classing doormats as "not submissive" I would class them as "extremely submissive". That is why we are talking at cross-purposes.
Regardless of terminology I think we agree on the fact that giving your power away to anyone that demands it is an unhealthy thing to do, and opens you up to abuse. Those people are too submissive for their own good. I agree that doms who take advantage of this behaviour to break down another person's self-esteem are engaging in abusive behaviour. Clearly some doms prey on extreme submissives for this reason and that is despicable.
Where we don't agree is on the advice for such extreme submissives. Your advice would be to "come back when you have dealt with your issues". My advice would be "find an experienced, respected, and loving dom who will treasure you and help build your self-esteem" In all therapeutic relationships the one thing that makes the difference is the amount of love in that relationship. A good dom can provide that love better than any other person. So rather than making her feel excluded by saying she is not a submissive I would say make her feel included by saying she is an extreme submissive and help her find the right dom. Through that relationship she can learn to move from unhealthy submission to healthy submission. That does not mean that I would want to bring abusive doms into the fold. The doormat is the victim and the abusive dom is the perpetrator. You help the victim and you cast out the perps, unless they are showing a willingness to learn.
You clearly understand the difference between a natural submissive and a doormat. Many of your fellow submissives do not. They call anyone who is less submissive than them a doormat. That pisses me off for obvious reasons. I do not like my girlfriend (and my mother for that matter) being called a doormat. Sometimes that means that I have reacted from anger and I am sorry for that. I have tried to keep my emotions out of this note and I hope that it can help to bring our views closer together.
M says :-
Firstly, while we are doing definitions can I point out that the term "vanilla" was coined to describe a type of intimate relationship and not to describe life per say. We all do life, whether we are BDSM or not. Money is earned, food is bought, kids are raised, that is neither BDSM nor vanilla.
I also dislike, and will fight, anyone who sees BDSM submission as being weak and doormat-ish. Just as I would argue against anyone who sees bottoming as submission or kinky sex as BDSM.
So back to doormats. This type of person draws people to them who have potential to fulfil the perpetuation needs. I used to see it all the time. They'd say things like, "Why do I always end up with the nutter?? They always seemed ok until we marry, then they changed" . There is a lot to be said for the tongue-in-cheek adage "the one consistent thing in all your bad relationships, is you" . A BDSM site is the perfect feeding ground when looking for someone who can make you feel as bad as you need to feel, whether they realise they are doing it or not.
You said "find an experienced, respected, and loving dom who will treasure you and help build your self-esteem"
That might cure the symptoms but it will not cure the cause. If this relationship then failed he or she would crash right back down to the level, or lower than the level, at which they entered the relationship. This would create the scenario you initially tried to discuss when most of the subs replied "no more than when any other relationship fails, I am not a doormat!". Unless you are qualified to do so you cannot do any more than be a crutch for the doormat type.
As for the other end of the seesaw, the ones you call perpetrators, they are victims too. For instance it is proven fact that a very high percentage of child abusers were abused children themselves. When I was working I was bound under the Child Protection Act to report any man who came to me to talk about having been abused as a child. The ones that don't commit child abuse often go on to be abusive in adult relationships. Why can't they have a therapeutic relationship with a loving and caring experienced sub? Why not? Because the risk of abuse is too high without having therapy to sort out the underlying issues, and the risk is more visible with the wife-beater than with the doormat.
BDSM Dom are not the all-knowing all-powerful beings that you would like to think they are. They are human not superhuman. They might not spot that they have been drawn in to an abusive relationship, and would probably avidly defend their position against anyone who was to say to them "look mate, you've got yourself in with someone who really needs counselling not BDSM" . It is a really quite a twisted view to believe that men can be good or bad but females are to be unquestionably accepted unless they show aggressive (male?) traits.
Also, don't think that because the doormat type is of low self-esteem or needing to perpetuate abuse they are too weak minded to manipulate, whether consciously or sub consciously, to get their needs met. It is their learnt behaviour and they have survived all this time on it.
The law of averages dictates that, after therapy, some doormats may find that they still need to submit but that percentage will be very low because natural BDSM submissives are not exactly ten a penny.
"find an experienced, respected, and loving dom who will treasure you and help build your self-esteem"
Like with natural BDSM submissives, natural BDSM Doms are hard to come by as well.
How do we teach Doms to spot this type so they can make an informed decision about entering the relationship? Can we find a way to tell them "by all means take them on but see that they get appropriate counselling" ? The easiest way is through debate and discussion, from both sides of the coin, so people can read, ponder and assess things for themselves. Informed consent is the only healthy way.
In my humble opinion -
Passive submission is not submission at all, just the act of a person willing to
give themselves without actually having themselves to give in the first place.
Active submision is submission, it is the act of power exchange.
You must have control in the first place to give it away to another,
and that is always an active act.
If it is not, then it isn't submission, it is abuse.
_chelsea_
Back to Subsection Index
Back to Main Index