A Bad Sub?

[CopperKnob]

If you don’t have a masochistic bone in your body so you’ve put a limit on all forms of sadism, you’re not a bad sub. You’re human. You’re you. You’re beautiful.

If you have enough triggers to fill a psych ward, you’re not a bad sub. You’re you, and you’re awesome.

If you’re scared of experimentation and terrified of CNC, you’re not a bad sub. You’re an individual just like the rest of us.

A bad sub is not someone who has clearly defined boundaries. A bad sub is not a monogamist or an inexperienced bottom or a person who uses their safe word every time they play.
I'm not convinced there's even such a thing as a bad sub.

There are only people—submissive, dominant, switchy, hedonistic, bratty… we are all just human beings. Being in the BDSM community does not require you to trade your personality for a series of masks. You're allowed to be flawed. You're allowed to be vanilla. You're allowed to struggle with your kink. You're allowed to hate sex or adore it. And you're allowed to voice your views and preferences.

There is such a thing as a perfect sub. Thats all subs. Everywhere. So let's celebrate them.

If you have an incurable gag reflex, a distaste for honorifics, a hatred of protocols, and you honour all of those things, you’re a good sub. If you love all those things and thus embrace them, you're a good sub, too. If you choose to experiment with those things because you genuinely want to, you’re a good sub. If you’re perfectly imperfect in your individuality, you’re a good sub.

If someone calls you out on who you are, attempts to coerce you into setting aside your hard limits, if they make you feel ashamed of your needs and boundaries, you’re not a bad sub. They’re a bad person

[TheBookCollector]

Not all doms like giving ***, or doing impact play either. Sadly there is a perception that punishments have to involve ***.

Giving lines, restricting tv, or corner time can be just as effective. Try standing in a confined space with a blindfold on no lights for 20 minutes with only your thoughts and pondet why you are being punished. It will seem like hours.

[Deleted Member]

No such thing as a bad sub.....or good.....only different.

[ge****]

22 minutes ago, Donnykinkster said:

No such thing as a bad sub.....or good.....only different.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of that to an extent, by extension that would equally have to apply to dominants then, and yet we all know there are dominants who are considered bad (usually because of lack of knowledge or consideration etc) - so just as there are those, then logically there must equally be bad submissives for similar reasons.

[Br****]

@gemini-man - yes, I agree that any person can be poor or worse at a kink role. But this does not invalidate the inherent imbalance between Dominant and Submissive that so many of us enjoy precisely because of that power shift. Yes, a shitty Submissive can cause real worry, stress and inconvenience for their Dominant, but when a Dominant is driven by only their own desire with no care to the person at their feet, it is unfortunately easier to cause extra harm, via violating physical and mental boundaries. This is not to forget that the Dominant is also *** - they may face kink-shaming or manipulation from a person who is not interested or capable of a healthy dynamic; but it is to acknowledge that the potential for greater harm in most cases is where a person is a poor Dominant. They can call “*** and ***” CNC in the worst cases. A true Dominant knows that their submissive must set the boundaries within which the Dominant directs the play with freedom and intense joy whilst the submissive gives up agency and allows direction. It is a gorgeous feeling to submit in these cases. But in my own experience, and other submissives I talk too, people can hide behind apparent Dominance to just take what they want and make you feel ashamed or deficient or “frigid” for expressing your boundaries.

[ge****]

8 minutes ago, BrambleBryar said:

@gemini-man - yes, I agree that any person can be poor or worse at a kink role. But this does not invalidate the inherent imbalance between Dominant and Submissive that so many of us enjoy precisely because of that power shift. Yes, a shitty Submissive can cause real worry, stress and inconvenience for their Dominant, but when a Dominant is driven by only their own desire with no care to the person at their feet, it is unfortunately easier to cause extra harm, via violating physical and mental boundaries. This is not to forget that the Dominant is also *** - they may face kink-shaming or manipulation from a person who is not interested or capable of a healthy dynamic; but it is to acknowledge that the potential for greater harm in most cases is where a person is a poor Dominant. They can call “*** and ***” CNC in the worst cases. A true Dominant knows that their submissive must set the boundaries within which the Dominant directs the play with freedom and intense joy whilst the submissive gives up agency and allows direction. It is a gorgeous feeling to submit in these cases. But in my own experience, and other submissives I talk too, people can hide behind apparent Dominance to just take what they want and make you feel ashamed or deficient or “frigid” for expressing your boundaries.

Oh I agree completely and wasn't seeking to suggest that the inherent dangers behind a "bad" dominant were matched by those posed by a "bad" submissive (although in *some* instances they could be) - of course the potential for *** and worse from a dominant out for themselves with complete disregard for the submissive is far worse than that which a "bad" submissive could (mostly) bring about.

My point was more a counter to the notion that there is no such thing as a bad submissive in general terms.

[Br****]

And also to recognise, although I am probably generalising far too much, that for many Submissives, the idea of displeasing your Dominant is very difficult, so you naturally want to give anything they want, and can forget to protect yourself. The Dominant, in a position of power, has a duty of care, to recognise this and actively facilitate open communication. Power and responsibility and all that. Although D/s should be a dynamic of equals, as humans, we all have traits that attract us to either/both roles, and we should be sensitive to the fact that a submissive may not easily express certain things or feel more pressure. The Dominant giving opportunity to discuss in a relaxed way about boundaries and desire is therefore very important. Of course some submissives may still not open up fully, but the key take home is that Dominants have a responsibility to be aware of this and offer it. To be a true Dominant, is not to shout your will the loudest, to get ***ed or trample on others, but (as many Dominants do) to be respected through your leadership and respect of those who entrust such vulnerability to you.

[Br****]

(Of course, if a submissive doesn’t voice their worries, then this still breaks down)

[Br****]

@gemini_man thank you for clarifying : )

[Deleted Member]

37 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of that to an extent, by extension that would equally have to apply to dominants then, and yet we all know there are dominants who are considered bad (usually because of lack of knowledge or consideration etc) - so just as there are those, then logically there must equally be bad submissives for similar reasons.

A good point and one I have to agree with, as I can't argue its logic. Yet I've yet to meet a "bad" sub or talk to one. I've talked to a few who it was obvious were not for me, and a couple who were, but they were neither good or bad….just different. Identifying early on those who were not actually submissive, maybe thought they were, but actually were not, has helped me avoid what some may label as "bad" but then it follows they are not actually submissive…..in so far as what my perception of that actually is.

 

As far as Dominants go…..when we are bad we are very very bad…..sometimes even dangerously so. I see a huge difference between "bad" used as an even measure between Dom and sub. Illogical maybe to see it being different between the two, but that's how it feels.

[ge****]

8 minutes ago, Donnykinkster said:

A good point and one I have to agree with, as I can't argue its logic. Yet I've yet to meet a "bad" sub or talk to one. I've talked to a few who it was obvious were not for me, and a couple who were, but they were neither good or bad….just different. Identifying early on those who were not actually submissive, maybe thought they were, but actually were not, has helped me avoid what some may label as "bad" but then it follows they are not actually submissive…..in so far as what my perception of that actually is.

 

As far as Dominants go…..when we are bad we are very very bad…..sometimes even dangerously so. I see a huge difference between "bad" used as an even measure between Dom and sub. Illogical maybe to see it being different between the two, but that's how it feels.

Oh I agree and as my post above said there are distinct differences between the potential damage a "bad" dominant could cause and that of a "bad" submissive and I wasn't for a moment suggesting otherwise, or that there was any kind of "even measure" - just think it worth acknowledging that good and bad can apply to either side of the coin and us submissives are not beyond being "bad" either - albeit in different ways and contexts.

But lets not make this about dominants vs submissives - but celebrate what CK started out to celebrate in her OP 🙂

[Ar****]

6 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

Oh I agree completely and wasn't seeking to suggest that the inherent dangers behind a "bad" dominant were matched by those posed by a "bad" submissive (although in *some* instances they could be) - of course the potential for *** and worse from a dominant out for themselves with complete disregard for the submissive is far worse than that which a "bad" submissive could (mostly) bring about.

My point was more a counter to the notion that there is no such thing as a bad submissive in general terms.

I think I get what you mean. During a short and slightly self-destructive spell at the start of the year I ignored everything I knew and tootled off to engage in evening of kinky debauchery with somebody I had met on here a couple of days earlier. There were so many red flags and yet I repeatedly tried give the benefit of the doubt.

Without going into detail it was an awful experience where I was manipulated, lied to, assaulted, had my consent violated, all multiple times as well as other things I don't care to try and remember.

I wouldn't look back and think of her "a bad sub", rather I consider that - during the time we spent together, at least - she behaved like a bad person. I think that's the difference, and why I agree with the message of this post.

[CopperKnob]

54 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

Oh I agree completely and wasn't seeking to suggest that the inherent dangers behind a "bad" dominant were matched by those posed by a "bad" submissive (although in *some* instances they could be) - of course the potential for *** and worse from a dominant out for themselves with complete disregard for the submissive is far worse than that which a "bad" submissive could (mostly) bring about.

My point was more a counter to the notion that there is no such thing as a bad submissive in general terms.

Are we getting into the realms of 'people' as opposed to Dom/sub? I don't know, just a thought...

[CopperKnob]

53 minutes ago, BrambleBryar said:

And also to recognise, although I am probably generalising far too much, that for many Submissives, the idea of displeasing your Dominant is very difficult, so you naturally want to give anything they want, and can forget to protect yourself. The Dominant, in a position of power, has a duty of care, to recognise this and actively facilitate open communication. Power and responsibility and all that. Although D/s should be a dynamic of equals, as humans, we all have traits that attract us to either/both roles, and we should be sensitive to the fact that a submissive may not easily express certain things or feel more pressure. The Dominant giving opportunity to discuss in a relaxed way about boundaries and desire is therefore very important. Of course some submissives may still not open up fully, but the key take home is that Dominants have a responsibility to be aware of this and offer it. To be a true Dominant, is not to shout your will the loudest, to get ***ed or trample on others, but (as many Dominants do) to be respected through your leadership and respect of those who entrust such vulnerability to you.

"For kany submissives, the idea of displeasing your Dominant is very difficult so you naturally want to give anything they want and can forget to protect yourself" - nail on the head for many I'm sure

[ge****]

19 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

Are we getting into the realms of 'people' as opposed to Dom/sub? I don't know, just a thought...

Yeah had that thought myself after reading Aranhis' post - but didn't want to further derail your thread by making the point

And perhaps that's where the distinction lies - there are no bad dominants or submissives, but there are bad people

[CopperKnob]

10 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

Yeah had that thought myself after reading Aranhis' post - but didn't want to further derail your thread by making the point

And perhaps that's where the distinction lies - there are no bad dominants or submissives, but there are bad people

I wrote it thinking, am i talking about Dom/mes/subs/people and stuck with subs purely because of the sentiment that some are called 'bad' (or worse) purely due to the boundaries etc that they put in place or, possibly physical/mental ill health placing restrictions upon them rather than acknowledging that the true issue/s is/are probably compatability/expectations/poor communication (and because writing about people in general doesn't really fit the theme of the site/forum).

[ge****]

3 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

I wrote it thinking, am i talking about Dom/mes/subs/people and stuck with subs purely because of the sentiment that some are called 'bad' (or worse) purely due to the boundaries etc that they put in place or, possibly physical/mental ill health placing restrictions upon them rather than acknowledging that the true issue/s is/are probably compatability/expectations/poor communication (and because writing about people in general doesn't really fit the theme of the site/forum).

Oh the terms and sentiment of your OP absolutely was about subs and I celebrate and embrace that completely - was just the notion of there not being such a thing as a "bad sub" I was countering, and ended up derailing as a result which was certainly not my intent

[CopperKnob]

9 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

Oh the terms and sentiment of your OP absolutely was about subs and I celebrate and embrace that completely - was just the notion of there not being such a thing as a "bad sub" I was countering, and ended up derailing as a result which was certainly not my intent

No, i don't think it's derailing it. It's still on topic for me.
Thinking...subs can violate consent, they can be poor communicators, and place themselves and others at risk etc, those behaviours 'could' be seen as being a 'bad' sub by some. I suppose for me, it comes down to the context eg: lack of experience/naivety/confidence etc. So its the motivation behind the behaviour which is, coming back to your point, about the person as opposed to the individuals kink identity.

[ey****]

So yeah

I was think this before - and - of course there's plenty of negative things that a submissive can do

Consent ***s, dishonesty, inconsistent behaviour, not following through with promises/offers, withholding information, cheating, whatever.

And all of which are things that are negative if a Dominant did them also

So I do think it backs up a bit that it's not about being a bad sub/Dom but being a bad person.

Like event the fantasists - not so much bad submissive - but - bad in terms of actually wanting to understand or put in an effort.

[Deleted Member]

It is a sad state of affairs that a post like this is necessary in a world that is supposed to be accepting and tolerant of individual tastes in kink. With the exception of safety and consent, it doesn't matter where your kink sits in the "scale" of things, you should be free to express your desires in any way you choose. There is far too much shaming and/or pontification when someone does not "conform" to others standards, and it makes me despair for the future of the Lifestyle in general. Great post. x

[Deleted Member]

I genuinely love your posts 💙

[MrEdge]

Having read this and experienced something recently that has made me seriously question my whole involvement in the D/S dynamic it's stikes me that as you say there's no "bad sub"
The questions I have asked myself relate to the confidence, courage and self esteem that was developed throughout a relationship that spanned almost a year that saw the sub flourish and develop into a head strong confident young woman in a personal relationship that was so male focused and mechanical that she was deemed an object of sexual outcome and pleasure with no focus on hers at all! 
Being able to guide, coach, mentor and educate to have self esteem to stop such actions made her feel empowered and a part of her sexual destiny!  What followed after a mutual agreement to separate was a tirade of physical and verbal *** and belittling that are me seriously stand back! Stand back and although i, like many others have personal obstacles that we all deal with, never once let these issues cloud, hinder or darken my in scene behaviour or attention to my sub, with their pleasure and safety at the forefront of my mind. 
To this moment now, I may have years of experience and knowledge surrounding the scene and D/S lifestyle! I am really struggling to take back the reigns and lead and direct ! If I can be coercive to bring such hatred and loathing from a dedicated and successful sub out after our relationship has ended and I felt there was no more to show other than for them to take the tools and try within their own relationship it's made me truly reflect on what impact I had on the individual and how the response was to me. It's made me question my outcomes and question what did I coach out of that individual! What buttons did I press to see such hatred and wrath! As someone who's only experienced this once, I can say once is enough and I hope I never succeed in seeing such an outcome ever again! It's not what I'm in this lifestyle for! It's not what I live this life for and I can't help thinking if that person was already there! Or did I bring not only the best, but possibly the worst out of them!

 

[ey****]

I think the problem as such is that "bad sub" (and also any form of "bad Dom" / "fake sub" / "fake Dom" etc) is moreso grooming and gaslighty than a reflection of personality or what they do.  And this can be internalised.

So a Dominant making a submissive feel bad because they said no, exercised a limit, used a safeword - whatever

or a submissive feeling they have to do things even though they don't like it because their Dominant said so (there's obviously times and dynamics this would be a part of - but it's still very contextual)

and the same can be true for Dominants like they feel they have to do certain things or be a certain way either their own internalised feelings or the whole negging "if you were a real Dom then..." 

--

This doesn't negate that subs or Dominants can be bad people.  

That's separate.

---

It also doesn't mean that one person's preferred style or dynamic isn't going to be automatically compatible with another.  

So if you want a sub who is into certain things. Then someone who isn't into those. Or unwilling to do these. Isn't a bad sub, they're just unsuitable for you.

--

Some people have behaviour that sucks - and some might be difficult to gauge without their side of the story, but, it's not that they're a bad sub - just that their behaviour is bad.   You have to separate the difference.

There's also those who might call themselves submissive, Dominant, whatever but have traits that go against it.  Sometimes this is difficult to judge without a full context - like - just because someone is, say, sexually submissive, doesn't mean they have to act meek like everyone is their betters at all time.  Because they're not everyone's sub.

[so****]

The best sub I've ever personally had wes a service oriented one. She was not masochist at all, wasn't into cnc, ageplay, pet play, etc. She was a service submissive 100% & it worked splendidly lol I suppose it depends on what a Dom is into. But she made a permanent impression on me that I'll never forget. Also, the only "bad" subs I can think of are the runaway puppy types, who are already owned & collared, yet go behind their masters back to message other Doms & play without permission. I've run across a lot of this in the past couple years. Although I'm a fierce defender of monogamy, I still understand poly situations. But this isn't poly. This is intentionally playing with other Dom's without their masters consent. Idk just call me old fashioned 😂lol

[ey****]

Even in a poly situation - it's possible to cheat or be unfaithful

But yeah, the subs who take one Dominant because they can't bare to not have a Dominant - but only with said Dominant until a "better" option comes along. (But we could substitute the word Dominant there for 'romantic partner' and it still make widespread sense)