Lilith or Eve? Female equality or not?

[Extrovert]

My intent is not to start a hostile exchange with you, but saying you'd willingly submit to a man brings up all kinds of pictures in my head from deferring to his superior intellect to letting him have his way with you sexually just because he knows what's best, or what he requires of you to commit to a relationship. I'm not saying this is you, but I'm saying this is a picture of you with a substandard brain,relegated to a second class citizen status .

In keeping with the desire to not have a hostile exchange, I say this with the most meaningful, heartfelt reason:
You come off completely narrow minded, judgmental and ignorant.
Intelligence has absolutely zero to do with the equation or, incidentally, her post.
She even mentioned that whom ever she may submit to must "love and honour" her.
Your thinking seems to be that, just because she assumes a role that she feels comfortable in, she is inherently some sort of defacto victim and, because of the choice, should see herself as intellectually inferior and offering herself up for abuse.
Her post states the opposite quite clearly. She has the brains, the will power and the strength to tell him to "get fucked" if her stated expectations aren't met..
Given this fact, how can you say this is a picture of someone with a substandard brain relegated to a second class citizen status?

I've read her post and yours several times over now and I'm left wondering if you even read what she wrote or if her inclination to submit was such an affront to your person that you still tried to give a negative slant contrary to how she believes things should be.

Are you familiar with the term projecting?

Keep in mind that the traditional roles you refer to are best suited to a primitive developing society

This, Minor, is your opinion. It's a bit sad too.
Just exactly what is so "primitive" about the man loving, protecting and honoring his mate? Or her adoring him and letting her nurturing side come to the fore? Is it not PC, in your opinion, for a woman to concede the lead in a relationship if she decides it's not something she wants?
Bear in mind as you think of your response that just because she chooses to submit to someone in a relationship doesn't mean she isn't still a strong, intelligent, opinionated individual completely capable (and expected to by any competent Dominant) of making her mark on society.(eg career etc)

Physical strength plays less and less of a role in an advanced society.

No one, before you, mentioned "physical" strength.
As mentioned before, either gender can be a Dominant and either gender can be a submissive.
Do you think that a male submissive looks for muscular traits in a female Dominant?
If this were a man speaking of submitting to a woman, would you have bothered mentioning the bit about letting the woman having her way with him?
If it were a woman submitting to a woman?

And as far as brains, you really don't believe that men have corned the market on intelligence do you? All of the indicators seem to indicate that women are on the verge of taking over in the office.

The emboldened bit is why I asked if you were familiar with the term projecting.
You do realize that even a feminist can be a submissive....right?
I think BleedingBulls strength was shown by merely being able to type the words "be willing to submit to a man" given opinions such as yours.
Not many people would have been able to say it as easily as she did.

In a nut shell, being submissive does not mean unintelligent, weak, abused or any of the other negative connotations you attempted to place on it.

 

[HK]

...but saying you'd willingly submit to a man brings up all kinds of pictures in my head from deferring to his superior intellect to letting him have his way with you sexually just because he knows what's best, or what he requires of you to commit to a relationship. I'm not saying this is you, but I'm saying this is a picture of you with a substandard brain, relegated to a second class citizen status.

I think I understand why this is the picture you might conjure from the term submissive, but it's not accurate. For a start, like others have pointed out, the submissive in a relationship is not generally someone who is forced into that position unwillingly. It's a role you choose to take on, usually after some careful consideration.


It's not about thinking a man is smarter than you, that he knows what is best better than you. For me at least, it's a position I wouldn't even put myself in with a man unless I thought our wants and desires were enough alike, and that we were tuned into each other enough to mean if I did give him control, he would be unlikely to ever make a decision that would massively conflict with my own feelings or comfort level.


Bearing in mind, it is always something that can be taken back. You make the choice to give yourself to someone like that and let them have that degree of control over you, but at any point you could say enough, I'm done. I don't believe men are naturally more intelligent than women, fuck I know plenty of guys who can't hold a candle to me but there's something about traditional gender roles and the idea of choosing to honour and obey a man that I find appealing. It's only something I would do for a man I felt deserved it though. I don't believe in blindly submitting to the authority of anything with testicles.

 

[Minor Axis]

In keeping with the desire to not have a hostile exchange, I say this with the most meaningful, heartfelt reason:
You come off completely narrow minded, judgmental and ignorant.

Ouch, sorry if I offended you. I would describe myself as the exact opposite and I threw in disclaimers if I interpreted the post inaccurately.

In a nut shell, being submissive does not mean unintelligent, weak, abused or any of the other negative connotations you attempted to place on it.

I started with the definition and took it from there. What does submission mean to you?

1.

inclined or ready to submit; unresistingly or humbly obedient: submissive servants.

2. of, tending towards, or indicating submission, humility, or servility

I think I understand why this is the picture you might conjure from the term submissive, but it's not accurate. For a start, like others have pointed out, the submissive in a relationship is not generally someone who is forced into that position unwillingly. It's a role you choose to take on, usually after some careful consideration.

Traditionally submission has been a role forced on women and using the phrase "I would submit to a gender" sounds sexist to me, even if it is reversed from the usual application. Maybe the person using the phrase is not weak but just prefers to submit to the male's judgment. I'm sure there are exceptions, but then I ask myself why submit? Was the statement said as a rare event or a common event? I don't know. All of the reasons I've mentioned (and taken exception by Extrovert) were traditional reasons men believed they are superior, why they have held the power in society and why women who have traditionally been placed in the role of child raiser, have also been placed in the role of submitting to the person who supports them. Today that is changing drastically. More and more women today are becoming the bread winners.

I was not implying that anyone who submits is less intelligent, but it seems to have been taken that way. It's safe to say the one who submits is the less assertive in the relationship. This is not necessarily a negative. Thankfully being forced into submitting based on your gender, in Western Society is on the wane. If the individual prefers submission, that's fine, but I'd argue that it may not be an equal relationship. If there is a reason to submit it is because you feel your partner has some quality that is superior to your own. But saying "I'd submit to a gender" when it's a male, without any other substantial qualifiers sounds like a blanket sexist position as in I'd defer to his judgment precisely because he's a male. The choice to submit should not be gender based, but based on the qualities of the individual you are in the relationship with.

 

[HK]

It's only something I would do for a man I felt deserved it though. I don't believe in blindly submitting to the authority of anything with testicles.

The choice to submit should not be gender based, but based on the qualities of the individual you are in the relationship with.

I'm requoting my own post since what you said suggests maybe that part didn't jump out at you. It sounds like you think submission of a woman automatically means she'd be on her knees for anyone with a Y chromosone, but as I said myself, this isn't the case. Choosing to give a level of control to someone else is something I and I think the vast majority of submissive women would do only in a relationship where it would be mutually beneficial, where I would feel that I was being rewarded for that choice and was with someone whom I felt understood and shared my ideals for the relationship.


And if I had any sort of attraction to having a serious relationship with a woman then I would look for the same qualities - I'm only using a man as an example here because I personally like being with men.


Preempting the question of what makes it worthwhile - for me, I like to feel looked after, or secure. So a rewarding example of submission in my life would be allowing a man to have control over me, and in return he would provide for me and keep me comfortable, in all senses.

If there is a reason to submit it is because you feel your partner has some quality that is superior to your own.

I think I can see why you're saying this, but it's not entirely accurate.


Technically, we all practice some form of 'submission' to other people. Acknowledging the authority of a manager for example, or of law enforcement officers. Do I believe that all police officers have superior qualities to me? Not exactly, but I do acknowledge that they have skills in areas that I don't, and are therefore better at their jobs than I would be. I have no interest in having a career and would view a man with a stable income as 'superior' in that regard, but the term superior here really isn't on the mark - being different doesn't make someone 'better' exactly, just skilled in a different area.


I don't think I'm explaining this very well - for me, it's not that I couldn't get a job and run a household and deal with finances and make all those decisions - but I would prefer to give control of all that over to a man and in return, create a home for him and raise his children. It's a give and take scenario, not all give on the side of the submissive and take on the side of the Dominant.


I'm not going into the sexual side of it here unless you're desperately curious about that, since I don't think details of that are terribly relevant

 

[Stone]

I don't think I'm explaining this very well

I think you are.... :thumbup

 

[Minor Axis]

Sorry for hijacking the thread! I'll try to wrap up my feelings with this post.

I'm requoting my own post since what you said suggests maybe that part didn't jump out at you. It sounds like you think submission of a woman automatically means she'd be on her knees for anyone with a Y chromosone, but as I said myself, this isn't the case. Choosing to give a level of control to someone else is something I and I think the vast majority of submissive women would do only in a relationship where it would be mutually beneficial, where I would feel that I was being rewarded for that choice and was with someone whom I felt understood and shared my ideals for the relationship.


And if I had any sort of attraction to having a serious relationship with a woman then I would look for the same qualities - I'm only using a man as an example here because I personally like being with men.


Preempting the question of what makes it worthwhile - for me, I like to feel looked after, or secure. So a rewarding example of submission in my life would be allowing a man to have control over me, and in return he would provide for me and keep me comfortable, in all senses.





I think I can see why you're saying this, but it's not entirely accurate.


Technically, we all practice some form of 'submission' to other people. Acknowledging the authority of a manager for example, or of law enforcement officers. Do I believe that all police officers have superior qualities to me? Not exactly, but I do acknowledge that they have skills in areas that I don't, and are therefore better at their jobs than I would be. I have no interest in having a career and would view a man with a stable income as 'superior' in that regard, but the term superior here really isn't on the mark - being different doesn't make someone 'better' exactly, just skilled in a different area.


I don't think I'm explaining this very well - for me, it's not that I couldn't get a job and run a household and deal with finances and make all those decisions - but I would prefer to give control of all that over to a man and in return, create a home for him and raise his children. It's a give and take scenario, not all give on the side of the submissive and take on the side of the Dominant.


I'm not going into the sexual side of it here unless you're desperately curious about that, since I don't think details of that are terribly relevant

I understand where you are coming from and you've explained it just fine. And Bleeding Bull, if I've misread what you were trying to express my apologies. I think if I have a problem, although I would not express it as such, it is with the connotations of the word "submit" especially when a women says "I'd submit to a man." As stated, the reason for the submission is primarily because of the gender of the other person. Look at the definition in my previous post. A better way to describe this, IMO would be to say "I evaluate and decide when to defer to my spouses judgment, or to let him/her have their way." I do that all the time.

I don't think I'm explaining this very well - for me, it's not that I couldn't get a job and run a household and deal with finances and make all those decisions - but I would prefer to give control of all that over to a man and in return, create a home for him and raise his children. It's a give and take scenario, not all give on the side of the submissive and take on the side of the Dominant.

I would not call this submission, I'd pick another word to describe it. The traditional women as home maker and husband as bread winner, requires no part of the word submission, imo. These roles can and do exist with equal responsibility when it comes to the decisions a couple faces. And based on gender those roles are becoming reversed in more and more cases.

 

[HK]

I think if I have a problem, although I would not express it as such, it is with the connotations of the word "submit" especially when a women says "I'd submit to a man." As stated, the reason for the submission is primarily because of the gender of the other person. Look at the definition in my previous post. A better way to describe this, IMO would be to say "I evaluate and decide when to defer to my spouses judgment, or to let him/her have their way." I do that all the time.

Deferring is on occasion a more suitable word. For some people, depending how far they take it, there is genuine submission, but I think you're right, in some instances it would be better referred to as deferring rather than submitting.

Possibly also as you say yourself, you see negative connotations with the word submit, whereas the people using it obviously don't

I would not call this submission, I'd pick another word to describe it. The traditional women as home maker and husband as bread winner, requires no part of the word submission, imo. These roles can and do exist with equal responsibility when it comes to the decisions a couple faces. And based on gender those roles are becoming reversed in more and more cases.

In that example, the submission part would come into play more in the private relationship between husband and wife for me anyway.


It sounds like the issue here is with the wording and the extremity of the situation. For the majority of normal relationships, deference is probably more accurate than using the term submission. But there are clearly relationships where people choose to give different levels of control over to their partner, right up to the point of not making any decisions themselves. I think even when it is that extreme, it's not something you're doing because you believe you're inferior to the other person. You both have something to offer each other, they're just very different things.

 

[Minor Axis]

It sounds like the issue here is with the wording and the extremity of the situation. For the majority of normal relationships, deference is probably more accurate than using the term submission. But there are clearly relationships where people choose to give different levels of control over to their partner, right up to the point of not making any decisions themselves. I think even when it is that extreme, it's not something you're doing because you believe you're inferior to the other person. You both have something to offer each other, they're just very different things.

Nothing is implied regarding the participants in this thread who took exception to my previous comments.

In my life I've seen situations were submission is perceived as being required. When I flew a U.S. Navy P-3 based in the Philippines, most of my crew members declared they had sworn off of American women, due to their uppity nature, and much preferred Filipino women because of their submissive behavior and their desire to unconditionally please them. Most of the women they had the opportunity to meet were prostitutes and I don't hold that against them, survival is the goal. I realized that as a rule, the local women, most of who lived in relative poverty, viewed the sailors if they could be snared as (relatively) wealthy vehicles out of the country, although I would not insist that genuine affection could not exist, and I did not blame them for trying to change their situation for the better. But you know what, they were all submissive, at least until they got polluted by American culture. "Submission" is a fact when it comes to the sexes around the world, but it is something to overcome.

 

[Greatest I am]

I think I understand why this is the picture you might conjure from the term submissive, but it's not accurate. For a start, like others have pointed out, the submissive in a relationship is not generally someone who is forced into that position unwillingly. It's a role you choose to take on, usually after some careful consideration.


It's not about thinking a man is smarter than you, that he knows what is best better than you. For me at least, it's a position I wouldn't even put myself in with a man unless I thought our wants and desires were enough alike, and that we were tuned into each other enough to mean if I did give him control, he would be unlikely to ever make a decision that would massively conflict with my own feelings or comfort level.


Bearing in mind, it is always something that can be taken back. You make the choice to give yourself to someone like that and let them have that degree of control over you, but at any point you could say enough, I'm done. I don't believe men are naturally more intelligent than women, fuck I know plenty of guys who can't hold a candle to me but there's something about traditional gender roles and the idea of choosing to honour and obey a man that I find appealing. It's only something I would do for a man I felt deserved it though. I don't believe in blindly submitting to the authority of anything with testicles.

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v1047857CXRNxJHk

Gen 3; [SUP]16 [/SUP]Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'

Rule over thee.

Regards
DL

 

[Leananshee]

GIA, while it is true that a lot of religious people justify their actions, questionable by what standards many of us hold, in centuries-old doctrine, that doesn't mean that all people who subscribe to a religion do. It does mean that those who have allowed faith to evolve with time have to watch for those who have not. Sadly, the latter tend to be more vocal, and tend to be more publicized as a means of spectacle. It also means that there are a great many who have had more dealings with this latter group who are disenfranchised from religion in general.

And the more society evolves as a whole, not just religion, and the more interactions people have across the globe, the more equitable it becomes, IMHO. Minor Axis' example of Filipino women being "polluted" by American culture, and mine about women in some Arabic cultures becoming more Westernized are cases in point. Cultural evolution, though, again is a historical process, meaning by definition slow.

 

[Greatest I am]

But you know what, they were all submissive, at least until they got polluted by American culture. "Submission" is a fact when it comes to the sexes around the world, but it is something to overcome.

+ 1

Regards
DL

 

[Minor Axis]

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v1047857CXRNxJHk

Gen 3; [SUP]16 [/SUP]Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'

Rule over thee.

Regards
DL

Wow, a powerful video. Submission goes hand in hand with subjugation. It belongs no place in a healthy relationship imo. While not a condemnation of all religion, Middle Eastern culture is the capital on Earth for relegating women to subjugated second class status. Wrapping them up in a blanket, how much more of a visual image is needed? But note, I said "culture" not religion. An argument can be made that their religion is deeply entwined in the culture and has been corrupted in the process.

 

[HK]

But there's still a difference between the involuntary submission of a person in an unbalanced relationship, and the voluntary submission of someone choosing to defer to their partner in a respectful and honest relationship.

 

[Minor Axis]

But there's still a difference between the involuntary submission of a person in an unbalanced relationship, and the voluntary submission of someone choosing to defer to their partner in a respectful and honest relationship.

I agree completely with your sentiment other than I'd never use the word "submit" (for reasons previously stated).

She even mentioned that whom ever she may submit to must "love and honour" her.

I just reread your post. Ask someone from the Middle East what "loving and honoring" your female spouse actually means. It will be something along the lines of putting them onto a obedient pedestal. I mention this not as a reflection on any participant in this thread, but to illustrate my perspective on how far an absolute meaning can take us when using the word "submit" without adequate clarification.

 

[Greatest I am]

Wow, a powerful video. Submission goes hand in hand with subjugation. It belongs no place in a healthy relationship imo. While not a condemnation of all religion, Middle Eastern culture is the capital on Earth for relegating women to subjugated second class status. Wrapping them up in a blanket, how much more of a visual image is needed? But note, I said "culture" not religion. An argument can be made that their religion is deeply entwined in the culture and has been corrupted in the process.

I agree. Cultural forces lead behavior not religion.


If it did not, the Christian nations like the U.S. would follow religious Christian laws and no American would tolerate such barbarism and blatant stupidity.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

GIA, while it is true that a lot of religious people justify their actions, questionable by what standards many of us hold, in centuries-old doctrine, that doesn't mean that all people who subscribe to a religion do. It does mean that those who have allowed faith to evolve with time have to watch for those who have not. Sadly, the latter tend to be more vocal, and tend to be more publicized as a means of spectacle. It also means that there are a great many who have had more dealings with this latter group who are disenfranchised from religion in general.

And the more society evolves as a whole, not just religion, and the more interactions people have across the globe, the more equitable it becomes, IMHO. Minor Axis' example of Filipino women being "polluted" by American culture, and mine about women in some Arabic cultures becoming more Westernized are cases in point. Cultural evolution, though, again is a historical process, meaning by definition slow.

It is definitely slow and the more we do in terms of legitimizing religions, the longer it will take to civilize the barbarians, regardless of the nationality or religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_9fI-z_I24

In Huntington's book, The Clash of Civilizations, he indicates that other countries of the East can be helped to become more modernized but that they cannot and do not want to be Westernized. A huge difference.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

But there's still a difference between the involuntary submission of a person in an unbalanced relationship, and the voluntary submission of someone choosing to defer to their partner in a respectful and honest relationship.

Again, I think that it is all the way language or words are looked at.

Acquiesce is I think the word you want even as it is described as submitting. A low quiet grade of submission that is.

I hate the English language. Hate is also the wrong word here but I bet you know what I mean.

Regards
DL

 

[Minor Axis]

I hate the English language. Hate is also the wrong word here but I bet you know what I mean.

Is there a language you prefer for being able to express yourself accurately? JC.

 

[Greatest I am]

Is there a language you prefer for being able to express yourself accurately? JC.

I have not checked lately to make sure the practice is still ongoing but in Canada, laws were written in French even as it and English are both official languages and French is the minority. It was done so for clarity and accuracy of terms.

For myself, I would have to stick to English as I have lost much of my French.

Regards
DL

 

[Extrovert]

Ouch, sorry if I offended you. I would describe myself as the exact opposite and I threw in disclaimers if I interpreted the post inaccurately.

Not in the least. I wasn't offended at all.
I was simply pointing out to you how wrong you were in your assessment, your closed minded concepts (as evidenced by the rest of your post in here I will address), your extremely judgmental interpretation and your ignorance (lack of knowledge) on what it means when someone submits in a relationship.

I started with the definition and took it from there.

You interpreted a text book definition of submission and turned it into something wholly different. You also did this with an obvious lack of any experience of what submission means.
I'll give you the word that applies to your definition at the end of this post.

What does submission mean to you?

In it's most basic form, submission is a gift.
It's when a person decides to give all of themselves to another. To make a commitment to another to be the best they possibly can be, to and for, their partner and, most importantly....themselves.
They are entrusting their partner with their destiny, albeit with constant input (as any proper Dom would demand).
These types of relationships have clearly defined roles, boundaries and protocols.
It is, in essence, a beautifully harmonious relationship with defined protocols that are the bedrock they both can point to and rely on.
It's not forced, coerced, demanded, compelled or any other negative connotation you're struggling to put on submission.

There is no one standard definition. It's akin to asking 10 people what marriage means to them. You will get 10 different definitions.

Traditionally submission has been a role forced on women

I can't even begin to explain how wrong you are on this point. That is not SUBMISSION.
To submit, a person simply MUST do so willingly.

and using the phrase "I would submit to a gender" sounds sexist to me

:umno
If a woman submits to a woman, where is the sexist sentiment?
Or a man to a man?

You see the error in your logic?

Maybe the person using the phrase is not weak but just prefers to submit to the male's judgment.

There is no "maybe". For the umpteenth time, a submissive is in no way weak.
I'll try and create a simplistic example so that perhaps you can see where your thinking is incorrect.
For example, a lineman (or any other member of the team that happens to be on offense) is submissive in regards to the quarterback. All know their roles. All are equally important. All are expected to do their level best.
The quarterback calls the audibles and lineman does his level best to carry out what's been said for the betterment of all involved.
Would you call that 300+lb man weak?

but then I ask myself why submit? Was the statement said as a rare event or a common event? I don't know.

It's painfully obvious you don't know....though you should by now. A couple of us have tried to help you gain insight.
There are as many reasons for a person to choose to be submissive as there are people who choose to do so.
The most common denominator amongst them though is comfort in that role.

All of the reasons I've mentioned (and taken exception by Extrovert) were traditional reasons men believed they are superior, why they have held the power in society and why women who have traditionally been placed in the role of child raiser, have also been placed in the role of submitting to the person who supports them. Today that is changing drastically. More and more women today are becoming the bread winners.

There are so many things blatantly wrong with this statement.
First.
You didn't give any reasons. You gave your interpretation.
Second.
Because ANY gender assumes the role of Dominant by ACCEPTING another's submission does NOT mean they think themselves superior. They simply have a strong personality (and apparently enough positive qualities to inspire another to offer their submission) and are inclined to take the lead in a relationship. Simple as that. Nothing more.
Third.
You're still hung up on gender.

Read this part several times:
It matters not one iota which gender is the bread winner in the relationship as pertains to Dominant and Submissive. Either gender can be either role. Either role can be the bread winner.
To further the point, if the Dominant doesn't create an environment and demand (through guidance and compassion) the best from their submissive...they are failing their submissive.

I was not implying that anyone who submits is less intelligent, but it seems to have been taken that way.

I wonder why it would have been taken that way. Let's see:

but saying you'd willingly submit to a man brings up .........a picture of you with a substandard brain[sic]

Can you see now why it was taken that way?

It's safe to say the one who submits is the less assertive in the relationship. This is not necessarily a negative.

It's not in any way a negative. None. In fact, it's a huge plus.
But let me clear you up on the "less assertive" bit.
It doesn't mean they don't have input or that their input isn't valued or expected.
It simply means there is an acknowledged alpha in the relationship.

being forced into submitting based on your gender, in Western Society is on the wane.

(face palm smiley sorely needed)
Submission has nothing to do with gender...ad naseum
If submission is forced, then the person isn't "willingly submitting" as BleedingBull said she'd readily do.
The definition you're still struggling to place on submit is as difficult as it is to make stick because it is the definition of another word....again...to come at the end of my post.

If the individual prefers submission, that's fine

Your approval isn't needed by those who'd choose to do so. Only the Dominant, to whom the submission is offered, has the say so as to whether its fine or not.

but I'd argue that it may not be an equal relationship.

You're showing your ignorance on the subject.
If both parties receive what they are looking for from the relationship then that relationship is equal.
The roles are different but both are needed.
You can't be a submissive if you have no Dominant.
You can't be a Dominant if you have no submissive.
Simple as that.

If there is a reason to submit it is because you feel your partner has some quality that is superior to your own.

That's one reason, for sure. It is most definitely not the only reason nor is it the most important one.
We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Ideally, we'd all find a mate who's strengths were in areas of our weaknesses and vice versa. What a tremendously successful relationship that would make.

But saying "I'd submit to a gender" when it's a male, without any other substantial qualifiers sounds like a blanket sexist position as in I'd defer to his judgment precisely because he's a male.

No one, before you, has stated anything remotely close to submitting to someone because they happen to be a specific gender. In fact, it's been stated several times now that is not the case.

The choice to submit should not be gender based, but based on the qualities of the individual you are in the relationship with.

You don't say.

As promised, here is the word you were trying, in vain, to replace submission with.
Subjugation is the word you were referring to. Not submission.