Fawning vs. Submission

I was asked to write on this subject in reality more after touching on it in some fiction, so here goes.

Firstly, some quick definitions:

Fawning (a fawn response) is a trauma based survival strategy involving automatic behaviors meant to appease a perceived threat.

Submission, for the purposes of this post, is a conscious, consensual set of behaviors meant to please a dominant partner.

Let’s unpack some of that.

Firstly, yes, fawning is most often a strategy formed in response to past trauma, while submission is engaged in for a variety of reasons.

Regardless of how these responses developed, though, our immediate key takeaway is going to be that fawning is more automatic, submission is more conscious. This isn’t totally cut and dry: many of the behaviors that please our partner become more automatic with time, and people can certainly lean in to, even weaponize, a fawn response. But in general, fawning is more subconscious, something people prone to that response automatically start to do when a certain trauma button (or trigger) has been hit. Submission, though, is often more conscious; having pleasing behaviors become more automatic generally involves purposeful training and communication.

But the biggest distinction is this: fawning is a survival strategy done in response to a perceived threat. The point of fawning is not actually to please: it is to survive, to dismantle the threat. Let’s say the dominant partner asks, “Hey, did you forget to get me coffee?” Someone with a history of trauma may sense this as a threat. (Remember, the important part is that a threat is perceived, whether or not it is real.) Having made a mistake (forgetting the coffee), they expect retribution (even if it’s just a verbal reprimand).

In an attempt to dismantle that threat, they fawn. “Oh my gosh, I’m so, so sorry! You’re so right. I was distracted by the TV. I’m the worst submissive ever. Please don’t be mad!” In this example, we can see the examples of over apologizing, flattery, excuses, self deprecation, hyperbole, and begging (to control their emotions).

This response is not about pleasing their partner. This response is about dismantling the perceived threat of being reprimanded or punished. The panicked aim is near instant forgiveness (or even reassurance that there is no threat), and to “fix” the potential negative emotion. The hyperbolic language (which may or may not feel real to the speaker, but is definitely being presented as a fact rather than an I feel statement) in particular invites reassurance, and centers the submissive’s opinion over the dominant’s, however self deprecating it sounds. This shuts down constructive conversation. Even if the dominant partner is still frustrated they didn’t get the coffee, they probably feel the need to first correct, “You’re not the worst submissive ever,” and go down that rabbithole.

Consider another response: “Oh, the coffee! I’m sorry. I’ll get it now if you want.” (And, bear in mind: the same person might give either of these responses depending on their preexisting state and what their exact triggers are.) The apology here is more lowkey. It’s not self deprecating, there’s no flattery or hyperbole or begging. There is no anticipatory control of a perceived, potential negative emotion, leaving the conversational door to consequences open. (That doesn’t mean the consequences are desired, just that they’re not being avoided.) There is more focus on an effort towards fixing the actual problem (although it crucially still acknowledges that the question was possibly just a question, and there might be a different followup—frantic overcorrection may be a part of fawning). The intention here is to ensure that the dominant partner gets what they wanted (the coffee) and remains in control of the interaction, not to ensure that they don’t feel frustrated by the error. The focus is on fixing the problem (and maybe preventing it from happening again. Accountability is taken when no excuses are made, or excess reasons given.)

Submission is done for them, from a place of mutual consent to elevate their will above your own. (Even if there’s also an element of self satisfaction in that submission aligns with your identity, makes you feel good, and/or gets you something, like praise, in exchange.) Fawning is done for you—it is self preservation, a tool to get your way (“safety”) without what looks like direct conflict. (But, as is often said: if you’re not willing to directly say no, it becomes very hard to trust your yes. And often, what we call conflict is just a hard, but mutually productive conversation.)

Let’s also zoom out a little. Fawning is one of several trauma based, automatic survival strategies. You may have also heard of some of the others: fight, flight, and freeze. All of these responses originate from the same place: a perceived threat. Some people are just more prone to some of them than others. You might be more of a flight person in some situations, a fawn person in others, but rarely fight. But while fawning or even fleeing can sound more submissive, consider this: they serve the exact same purpose as a fight response. Maybe you saw the fawning example with the coffee and thought that it still seemed pretty submissive. Consider that, instead, the submissive partner snaps, “You can get your own damn coffee.” Still sounds submissive? No? But consider: both of those responses are after the same thing.

“It’s okay! It’s not that big a deal! I’m not mad. You’re not the worst submissive ever,” the dominant partner might say in response to the fawn response. Maybe even: “Don’t worry about it, I’ll get it.” Which is what the fawn response was looking for. And in response to the fight response, a dominant partner (maybe one with a fawn response of their own) might even go, “You’re right, I’m capable of getting my own coffee. I shouldn’t have bothered you for it.” The perceived threat is gone in either case, which is the response the submissive depends on.

Meaning: fawning is just as incompatible with submission as a fight response. (One of them or the other just might be more effective, depending on the partner’s response. If the partner fights back, that response will likely be noted as not leading to safety.) 

These survival strategies are meant to keep things in your zone of tolerance. Your zone of tolerance is your optimal level of arousal (not just in the sexy way). Too much (hyperarousal) or too little (hypoarousal) stimulation often leads to dysregulation, dissociation, and the flight/fight/freeze/fawn response.

Submission is more likely to happen within your zone of tolerance. (Things like limit pushing scenes are often done to test or expand that zone, and play with the responses, more within the realm of sadomasochism than of dominance and submission.) Submission is generally conscious and present, whereas fawning tends to be more dissociative (externally this may look like freezing, and internally it may be a way of “fleeing” the situation).

Let’s talk about shapes for a minute, and let’s start with the drama triangle versus the empowerment triangle, which a friend recently introduced me to.

Not to generalize, but the basic idea is about the roles people play in conflict. The three corners of the drama triangle are the victim, the persecutor (or the villain), and the rescuer (or the hero). A fawn response most often involves playing the role of the victim. This means the other party (here, the dominant partner) will generally fall into one of two roles: the persecutor, or the rescuer. Which of these roles sounds more appealing to you? Rather than pulling a, “You want me to be the bad guy? Fine, now I’m the bad guy,” many dominant partners will run for the rescuer role, laying on the praise and reassurance, and perhaps even enjoying or coming to depend on the feeling of being needed.

The flip side of this is the empowerment triangle (the creator, the challenger, and the coach). The submissive who says, “Oh, the coffee! I’m sorry. I’ll get it now if you want,” may be in the role of the creator, putting an offer of fixing the coffee situation on the table. The dominant may then take on the coach role, having them get the coffee now and turn off that TV while they’re talking in the future to prevent distraction. The dominant keeps control and gets their coffee, and the submissive is empowered to move on and not make the same mistake again. Note the core word power here. You cannot exchange or transfer power that you do not have.

Related to these triangles are two loops (or circles): the victim loop and the accountability loop. The victim loop includes ignore, deny, blame, rationalize, resist, and hide. We can see large pieces of this in that fawn response. “Oh my gosh, I’m so, so sorry! You’re so right. I was distracted by the TV. I’m the worst submissive ever. Please don’t be mad!” The point of the coffee is almost ignored in favor of focusing on the emotion. Accountability is denied and the situation is blamed on and rationalized away by the claim of distraction. (Taken a step further, it might even be blamed on a tendency towards distraction, as if this is a trait that can’t be worked on.) The possibility of a negative emotion is resisted and hidden from behind flattery, hyperbolic self deprecation, and outright pleading. You get the idea.

The accountability loop, on the other hand, involves: recognize, own, forgive, self examine, learn, action. The response of submission starts by recognizing the coffee issue. “Oh, the coffee! I’m sorry. I’ll get it now if you want.” It’s owned rather than excused away. There are no self flagellating, unforgiving words. Immediate action is offered. The door for learning and self examination is left open (while also, importantly, allowing the dominant partner to actually respond).

And here’s the thing about a fawn (or fight, or flight, so on) response: it can shut down the potential for real connection. A dominant partner who is looking for a sympathetic response (they didn’t get the thing they wanted, after all) is instead faced with the notion that something in you is prioritizing self preserving, making a perceived threat go away, over helping them with their problem or recognizing their emotions. Many people don’t like to feel like a threat when they’re looking for help, showing vulnerability, or expressing a negative emotion. The fawn response can, if sometimes unintentionally, frame the dominant partner’s response as the problem rather than the submissive’s behavior. (Likely based on the trauma of having received an actually disproportional response in the past.) Fawning polices displays of emotion just as much as a fight response. Fawning and the victim loop can also frame the initial expectation as unreasonable. If you go, “I’m not perfect! No one is!” when asked for competence, what does that make it sound like was demanded of you? 

Over time, this can lead to the feeling of walking on eggshells. Dominants may repress their feelings and cease to call out mistakes, let alone engage in a punishment dynamic, if the emotional labor of managing the submissive’s response (say, through excessive aftercare) stops seeming worthwhile. They repress, possibly becoming afraid that almost any sign of emotion will be read as being about the submissive, and subject to questioning, to needing to reassure them. Meanwhile, many submissive partners view a “serious emotional response” (fawn response) to (even perceived) reprimand as something like a badge of honor, a sign of truly caring and “true” submission, particularly if the response technically fits within established protocol. 

Let’s remember that reinforcement and punishment (in operant conditioning) are defined by an increase or decrease in the behavior. If a dominant stops calling out mistakes because of how a submissive responds: who is punishing whom? And: don’t punish the behavior you (at least claim) you want to see. That is how power dynamics fizzle, flip, or end. 

So, what do we do about this? Well, being trauma based, chronic fawn (and fight, flight, so on) responses are best addressed by a quality mental health professional, who can help you expand your zone of tolerance and achieve more presence, comfort, and regulation, allowing you to consciously, happily submit, or dominate, if you so choose. (Trust me, I am speaking from personal experience here.)

Note: it is your job to manage your emotions and responses, not your partner’s, or even really a professional’s. (You have to engage in treatment). Likewise, if you want to engage in power exchange, to dominate or to submit is your responsibility. Your partner can’t “make you” fawn, submit, fight, dominate, or so on. They can only, if they so choose, support you in the healing process.