RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves?

RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

CitizenCane -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/3/2007 9:24:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Faramir Plenty of M/s couples share eros love deeply, fully and reciprocally. Of course there are those people who have a model of love and power that is a single axis scale, where at one end we find authority, power, the willingness to exercise it, and at the other end love and intimacy. Given such a model, you can choose between fully wielding authority, fully loving, or some sort of partial solution that compromises both. I think that is a pretty stupid model. A better model would be the one behind the Marshalk Interactive Method assesment tool (MIMS): love and discipline on seperate axes. In the middle of each axis is a healthy norm, and at the axis ends an unhealthy excess or an unhealthy abscence. So one might love in a healthy way (the midpoint), be coldly unattached at one end and smothering at the other end. On the discipline axis, one might be properly authoritative at the midpoint, weak at one end and arbitrarily or tyrannically weilding power at the other end. Well said. I think that the 'love' that some dominants may be afraid of, or afraid of acknowledging, is not love at all but emotional dependence. This is merely fear- ultimately, it is fear of the pain of emotional loss- ie, heartbreak. A person, dominant or not, who is secure in their own center, need not be controlled by such fear, and can love who they please. This is not to imply, however, that a dom who has mastered his own fear WILL love his sub- it just becomes an option.

DominaSmartass -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/3/2007 10:08:54 PM)
If I am ever lucky enough to have a slave I will certainly love him. I may not be in love with him because it's possibly (very likely) that he won't be my romantic partner (already got one of those.) But I think that love must be there in some way, or why do it?

ownedgirlie -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 12:20:55 AM)
My Master loves me very much. It's not a romantic, smoochie woochi kind of love, but then I don't know how I'd respond to that anyway. He is wonderful to me and I can see his love for me daily in his actions. "In love?" I really don't know, nor do I spend any time thinking about it. He lets me love and adore him; what more could I want?

AquaticSub -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 3:43:37 AM)
I know that Valyraen loves me. He says it with his voice but he also says it with so much more. With the way he finds little shinies and brings them home to me and the way he holds me at night, refusing to go to sleep until he gets his good-night kiss and refusing to leave in the morning until he gets his good-bye kiss. From what I've seen, it's completely normal for owners to love their pets. I couldn't be in this lifestyle if it wasn't.

MyMasterStephen -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 4:03:10 AM)
I cannot conceive of an M/s relationship that isn't loving. The idea is utterly alien to me.

MistressNoName -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 7:36:41 AM)
Some Masters (meant in an inclusive sense) find it less difficult and/or complicated to do some of the things that we do to a slave they are not "in love" with. Master Jack McGeorge also has a philosophy that servants should be loved as siblings but not as objects of romantic love. If you post a question to his site asking him to explain his philosophy, I'm sure he'd respond. http://www.disciplineandservice.org MNN

SirCache -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 7:55:20 AM)
It depends, really. Sometimes it is just a measure of training a slave, or just a playful romp with friends in which case it is not about me personally. Other times it is something open that has the potential to where love can develop. Love is deeply personal, and it cannot be given away willy-nilly to whomever I am with. Do I care? Sure--I would not be there with them if I did not care. Just because I care does not mean I am free to love a person, particularly in a romantic way. But I have loved before and will continue to do so in the future. It is unethical to deny deep feelings when you have them.

emdoub -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 7:58:29 AM)
It's not that emotion is threatening; it's more that love feels contrary to strict control and discipline. I've owned and loved. I've owned without loving - and that was easier, and worked better for both of us. I will say that I wouldn't own anyone I didn't cherish - but love is a complication I won't strive for. I wouldn't prevent it - but I won't put effort into bringing it into a relationship. Midnight Writer

Faramir -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 8:01:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: emdoub It's not that emotion is threatening; it's more that love feels contrary to strict control and discipline. I've owned and loved. I've owned without loving - and that was easier, and worked better for both of us. I will say that I wouldn't own anyone I didn't cherish - but love is a complication I won't strive for. I wouldn't prevent it - but I won't put effort into bringing it into a relationship. Midnight Writer You just said love threatened the strictness of your control and discipline: "love feels contrary to strict control and discipline," ergo, love is threatening to you.

emdoub -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 8:12:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Faramir You just said love threatened the strictness of your control and discipline: "love feels contrary to strict control and discipline," ergo, love is threatening to you. While it's remarkably kind of you to tell me what I really meant (after all, without such graceful assistance, I may never know what I really mean), you're mistaken. Love is not remarkably compatible with strict control or discipline - it makes them more difficult. The two are not mutually exclusive, though love does make strict discipline much less fun than it could be otherwise. I don't believe that I used the word 'threaten' in any of its derivitaves after the first statement, in which I clearly said that it was not applicable. Ergo, you need to practice better reading comprehension. Thanks, however, for the reminder of why I'm online so often. Midnight Writer

peepeegirl5 -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 8:16:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CitizenCane quote: ORIGINAL: Faramir Plenty of M/s couples share eros love deeply, fully and reciprocally. Of course there are those people who have a model of love and power that is a single axis scale, where at one end we find authority, power, the willingness to exercise it, and at the other end love and intimacy. Given such a model, you can choose between fully wielding authority, fully loving, or some sort of partial solution that compromises both. I think that is a pretty stupid model. A better model would be the one behind the Marshalk Interactive Method assesment tool (MIMS): love and discipline on seperate axes. In the middle of each axis is a healthy norm, and at the axis ends an unhealthy excess or an unhealthy abscence. So one might love in a healthy way (the midpoint), be coldly unattached at one end and smothering at the other end. On the discipline axis, one might be properly authoritative at the midpoint, weak at one end and arbitrarily or tyrannically weilding power at the other end. Well said. I think that the 'love' that some dominants may be afraid of, or afraid of acknowledging, is not love at all but emotional dependence. This is merely fear- ultimately, it is fear of the pain of emotional loss- ie, heartbreak. A person, dominant or not, who is secure in their own center, need not be controlled by such fear, and can love who they please. This is not to imply, however, that a dom who has mastered his own fear WILL love his sub- it just becomes an option. what interesting ideas.

Faramir -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 8:27:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: emdoubhttp://www.collarchat.com/post.asp?do=reply&q=1&messageID=1059110&toStyle=tm While it's remarkably kind of you to tell me what I really meant (after all, without such graceful assistance, I may never know what I really mean), you're mistaken. It's not kindness--it's criticism, and that's why I cited your text to support my criticism. So either you are a sloopy fucking midnight writer, or you are disavowing your explicit statements. Don't be cowardly, man. Love "is contrary" to discipline and control, love makes strict discipline "much less fun," but it's not, heaven forfend, threatening. That would be, threatening, right? Holy crap--someone help me have the balls to to be consistent with my stated ethos!!!

Lordandmaster -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 8:30:49 AM)
Ah yes, good old Faramir. Anyone who disagrees with him must be lacking testicles.

emdoub -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 9:28:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Ah yes, good old Faramir. Anyone who disagrees with him must be lacking testicles. And nothing better to do with their time, to boot. Midnight Writer

JerryInTampa -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 10:33:33 AM)
I've been madly in love with all my slaves. I've played with some bottoms that I merely liked; but I wouldn't collar someone without cause, and that cause usually includes love. So I cannot answer your question as it relies on an unaccepted premise.

slaverosebeauty -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 10:50:52 AM)
I think love can be a GREAT motivator for someone; it can make yuo want ot learna new craft. I know Masters who decided to learn something new because they had reached that level/place where they loved their slave and wanted to try something new. Love is not a weak 'thing' {I believe it goes deeper than any emotion, its a 'state of being'}; it takes strength to understand it and to be able to function with love, so a strong Master can have love and a slave, he gets his cake and gets to eat it too. [:D]

MasterLordguru -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 10:58:42 AM)
To quote (in Jest) Agent Smith from the original Matrix. "Love! Such an insipid thing" (and thats not a direc quote) All kidding aside, A Person of Dominance, weather we call Him/Her, Master/Mistress, Lord, Daddy, Sir and all the labels and titles we take upon ourselves, can love a submissive/pet/toy/littlegirl/boy/ and possesssion. OF course we can. Love is not however the Opus of what makes a M/s relationship. It is just one of many components. I have loved my pets. I have cherished them, adored them and felt true emotional connection with them. And as somoene stated in an earlier part of this thread, sometimes, emotions, especially love, Does make it difficult to bring pain and aunguish to one you care so much for. This is becuase you start to start to let the emotional take the place of the rational. I said it to my pet, and one who loves me.. that even though she Loves me, I don't crave Love. All I crave and request is to be worshipped and adored. To some that is Love, to others that is not. And when I grace her or any other's in my life with those words, they know it for truth. Love is wonderful but it doesn't conquer all. And as long as people balance emotional with rational, then the relationships can grow.

slaverosebeauty -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 11:00:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Faramir Don't be cowardly, man. Love "is contrary" to discipline and control, love makes strict discipline "much less fun," but it's not, heaven forfend, threatening. That would be, threatening, right? Holy crap--someone help me have the balls to to be consistent with my stated ethos!!! Love has nothing to do with disciple/punishment; its done for the same reason with or without love. Love might make it 'harder' {for lack of a better term} to punish, but, it still has to be done, regardless. Faramir, has his balls in the right place, he knows how this 'love/punishment thing' works.

Indemnis -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 11:04:30 AM)
I truly do think any Master/Dom scared of falling in love is far weaker than one who openly admits and seeks love. Certianly, being in love gives your slave/sub some power over you. In some D/s relationships, 'topping from the bottom' is acceptable, and even enjoyable by both Dom and sub. If that isn't your bag, I would say you need to assert the Dominance that you claim to have, and ensure you do not let yourself be manipulated, no matter how in love you are.. :) "Protecting your dominance" from love is nothing more than being afraid of your position becoming threatened, in my humble opinion. I know my D loves me very much, and I absolutely adore him... I would never ever ever use his love for me against him, or even think about trying to manipulate him. If I want or need or feel something, it can be assured I will speak to him about it openly... never would I use "If you love me, you'll..." except perhaps in jest or teasing him with a pouty lower lip. ;) Example: "If you really love me, you'll get out the whip..." [;)]

LaTigresse -> RE: Why do Masters NOT fall in love with thier slaves? (6/4/2007 11:28:32 AM)
Interesting ideas here. Some seem to think that love makes one weaker or is seen as a weak emotion. I have always seen it as the opposite myself. Perhaps it is how each of us define love. I have seen that too many confuse love with weaker emotions like lust, desire, need. Sadly, too many marry with that delusion also. Several weeks ago my youngest sister surprised me with a statement. She said "So many people talk about unconditional love but I have only known one person that really knows what it means and actually does love unconditionally. That is you." Needless to say that statement really gave me cause to think. There are not many people in my life I can say that I love but those that I do, it is and has always been a constant regardless of whatever garbage the relationship has suffered. I can honestly say that if my ex where still alive, though being together is not an option, I still love her. On the flip side, there are many people I genuinely like, enjoy their company, would be sad if they disappeared, but I cannot say that I love them either. There are only a very small handful of people that I would be genuinely devasted if they were taken from me. Love is so weird to try and define. I also thought the phrase about married people and how they should already be "in love". I am married but I certainly cannot say I am "in love". Though my situation is pretty bizarre even by the standards of many CM members. If I am to ever had another submissive/slave I most definately have to love them. I am not tollerant enough of people to have someone that close to me and not love them, it wouldn't be worth the headaches. Do I need or want to be "in love"? I just don't know what those two words should be "in love" versus "love". If "in love" is defined ONLY by, need, lust, desire......then no, that's too weak and will not withstand the storms of life. The idea of being madly in love makes me think of teenage infatuation, full of insecurities and hormones.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875