Submission and commitment
the twin concepts that got dragged through ego, memes, and miseducation until their meaning bled out. We use them in conversation, in vows, in captions… but somewhere between gender wars and Twitter theology, the voltage got lost.
Let’s talk plainly.
Submission was never about surrendering your power. It’s about alignment.
You don’t submit to a person; you submit to a principle, to the shared mission, to the order that sustains what you’re building. The body bends, not to break, but to protect what the spirit guards. Yet ego keeps stepping in, whispering that control equals security. And that’s where the collapse begins, because control without coherence is chaos wearing cologne.
Commitment got commercialized.
They made it a ring, a promise with filters on it. But commitment is the invisible contract. It’s what makes the vow mean something after the ceremony fades. Without it, that ring is just a prop.
the wild part of me is this:
People say, “I refuse to submit,” while already sharing time, space, and body. That’s still submission... but to what? Love? Lust? Loneliness? Ego? Distraction? Because you can’t intertwine your life with another without submitting somewhere. And you can’t build anything lasting without committing to a structure.
If you refuse to submit, you refuse to commit.
If you refuse to commit, you’re not building, you’re just visiting.
That’s a tragedy of this era: we confuse connection with possession, and freedom with avoidance.
Submission is order.
Commitment is architecture.
Without both, you’re just leasing space in someone’s life — until the contract runs out.
Question for you:
When you say you want love, are you prepared to align and build — or just rent the feeling until it fades?
No comments:
Post a Comment