Submission and Reactance (by Meadow)

From Internal Enslavement part 3: “Why is it better for some submissives to be under the rule of a Master and become His property as an owned slave?
Here I am thinking about the human need for self actualization. Each one is more or less striving to become the person that he/she really is and to act one's self out in life. For some submissives it is an aspect of their nature that they need to be under control for fulfillment.
When they are under control of a Dominant they trust in and accept as Master over themselves and their lives, they feel bliss when their personal freedom is restricted.”

This feels correct to me, and a lovely description. The bliss is a positive experience, rather than the absence of negative experiences. The warm luminous fed feeling of being Mastered is separate from the content. The point is not that I need to be controlled in order to define my boundaries, derive my self-worth, accomplish my goals, or even to have a rest after a demanding day, but that being controlled in the context of a submitted relationship is gratifying in itself and fulfils a specific and separate need.

The rest of the above paragraph follows: “They (Natural Slaves) don't feel reactance that other people would feel then their personal freedom is in danger or taken away, and they don't rebel and fight in order to regain their personal freedom.”

Suriya Mistwood pointed out to me something that I think is true . . . that reactance is a phenomenon that happens if the loss of freedom is nonconsensual. Perhaps the emotional fulfilment of consensual submission is not a lack ~ of reactance or anything else ~ but instead, a positive experience deserving of its own specific name. If that were true, then the reason those of us hard-wired for consensual slavery don’t rebel and fight when controlled by our Masters is because our personal freedom has not fundamentally been taken. Quite the contrary.

Thanks for reading!

Meadow
Ryn’s kajira