Male Dominants: Love & Romance

Male Dominants: Love & Romance (Full Version)

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

Message

DeviantlyD -> Male Dominants: Love & Romance (6/16/2007 10:24:43 PM)
I have a question for you regarding love and romance. I have read the opinions of many male Dominants who feel they cannot be in love with their submissive/slave and have a truly D/s relationship. They may love their sub/slave, as one would a pet, but that is as far as it goes. I have also read of those who are in loving, romantic relationships with their submissive/slave and it is a romantic type of love relationship. For those who don't feel they can be "in" love with their submissive/slave, do you not crave a romantic relationship? Is it anything you ever think of having? If your answer is no, I am very curious as to why. Regards, D.

beargonewild -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (6/17/2007 6:11:55 AM)
I may have an unconventional view on this but this is from a submissive switch point of view. If I am involved in a LTR, then I want the D/s relationship as well as the love and romance. Having that deep of a connection with a S/O, love will naturally be part of the dynamic and I do want to strive to reach a balance between the D/s and romance components. Whereas, if I take on a sub on a casual basis (not 24/7) I would have fond feelings him though not what would be classified as love but a strong liking for that person. If the strong lking developed further then so be it. In my own opinion, I believe that a Dom can love their slave/sub and still maintain the D/s aspect. It's just a matter of finding a balance between the two which works for both parties.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (6/17/2007 8:04:44 AM)
Regarding the opinion that love and D/s cannot mix, I think this is an immature view of BDSM and relationships. Of course I say that because I don't like it and prefer "my" way so take this with a grain of salt. Love and romance require one way of acting - the gorian slavegirl fantasy requires another and I use gor because it is pretty hot fantasy and it is about slaves and d/s. I am going to refer to these two dynamics as the romantic and slaver roles. Before the typical "but we are super D/s people and we do this or that" I am NOT talking specifics here, just broad archetypes people so please respond with that in mind. Being with a part time sub/slaves it is easy to stay in the slaver role, slave sleeping at the foot of the bed, eating out a bowl, always being naked or whatever 'bits" make up the dynamics of the relationship. For me, that stuff is hot, but last night at a play party the only thing I saw that I REALLY wanted was after a scene someone's girl climbed up into their lap, put their head on their owner's shoulder and laid there. I wasn't jealous about them I was jealous that my girl wasn't doing the same thing (she would but she wasn't there) but that isn't "hard core" that isn't the classic behavior of the slaver. I think it takes a bit of experience at trying to mix the two or to just be in the slaver roll to see how empty it is of love and emotion and to me it is an immature place to me, immature as in growing past it moves you to a better place emotionally. I think it is also deeper as well to be in love with someone and yet still maintain a real level of D/s. The ability to combine both makes both stronger and more real. To me, playing the slaver role or the slave to the slaver roll is acting, roll playing. (again before the reactive nitwits thinks I am attacking being a slave I am not as I seek to own someone at that level as well) I think that having that power and ability to chain someone to the foot of your bed and both of you knowing you can and will at times do that but looking at your partner and saying "I want you in bed next to me as an inch away is too far" is exactly how I want to spend the rest of my life.

beargonewild -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (6/17/2007 10:12:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I think it takes a bit of experience at trying to mix the two or to just be in the slaver roll to see how empty it is of love and emotion and to me it is an immature place to me, immature as in growing past it moves you to a better place emotionally. I think it is also deeper as well to be in love with someone and yet still maintain a real level of D/s. The ability to combine both makes both stronger and more real. To me, playing the slaver role or the slave to the slaver roll is acting, roll playing. (again before the reactive nitwits thinks I am attacking being a slave I am not as I seek to own someone at that level as well) I think that having that power and ability to chain someone to the foot of your bed and both of you knowing you can and will at times do that but looking at your partner and saying "I want you in bed next to me as an inch away is too far" is exactly how I want to spend the rest of my life. I couldn't have said this any better. Being the type of person I am overall, I find I have to have some sort of emotional connectoion whether it's a strong like and/or love to the other person I either submit to or they are submitting to me. My own persoanal view is striving to find that balance between both the romance and the D/s enhances the relationship and give a depth that otherwise isn't there.

DaddyBEAST -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/7/2007 11:08:19 AM)
A Dom should be Master of himself first, before anybody else. To Me this means acceptance of one's self and being in touch with one's feelings, a significant part of what makes anybody human. The capacity to love is a great strength, and imo can enhance the bond between a Dom and sub. With or without love, it can work both ways - different strokes for different folks.

Faramir -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/7/2007 12:38:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I think it takes a bit of experience at trying to mix the two or to just be in the slaver roll to see how empty it is of love and emotion and to me it is an immature place to me, immature as in growing past it moves you to a better place emotionally. I'm not sure about that hommie. As much as I personally cannot comprehend a D/s relationship that doesn't lead, create, maintain, consist of eros love, I am not ready to ascribe "maturity" to that modality. It's your way, it's my way, but I know people for whom it is not their way, and your phrasing of immaturity to maturity valorizes our center and devalues other people's center. I'm also not sure this is related to experience--in my experience, it is a native mode, a natural inclination I have, rather than a place I've got to via learning, as part of pragmatism. I think what you describe briefly, the flash of longing at seeing another couple articulating in their actions intimacy and love, was really beautiful, but constructing it as a superior (more mature) mode relfects personal centering.

MadRabbit -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/7/2007 1:14:04 PM)
Generally, online and in real time, I have heard two arguments against mixing romantic love with an M/S relationship. The first one being that a strong emotional connection makes it difficult for a Master to be strict or controlling in certain situations. This is true. Anyone who has ever been a parent understands how emotional connection with their child can greatly interfere with "tough love" (And even someone like me who's never been a parent, but is empathic can understand it). Its a good argument and case. However, anyone who says "Someone cannot be a good Master if he is in love with his slave" might as well say "Someone cannot be a good parent if they love thier child". Parents overcome the trials of "tough love" all the time and I see no reason why a Master cannot. The other argument is that romantic behavior ruins the substance of a M/S relationship. That intimate acts and romantic behaviors between two lovers is not proper between a Master and slave when the relationship is based on Ownership. Thats cool. If someone wants to have this perspective in their own personal lifestyle, I see nothing wrong with it. However, the notion that two people who have an M/S relationship with a more romantic aspect are somehow less "real" than two people who dont is horribly flawed. If the "realness" of our relationships could be defined by a preference for neckwear, a special choice in sleeping arrangements or the lack/prescense of a night of cuddling by the fire, then I would say we really dont have much to talk about on these forums. The substance of my M/S relationships are defined by authority. Nothing else. And unless someone can explain to me how me wanting to cuddle and allow my slave to sleep in the bed with me somehow lessens my authority regarding the direction and activities of the relationship, then my M/S relationship has just as much substance as the Master who prefers more formal, platonic terms and their slave's sleeping quarters to be on the floor.

MadRabbit -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/7/2007 1:15:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Faramir I'm not sure about that hommie. Just gotta push his buttons... [;)]

Rover -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/7/2007 6:48:03 PM)
This notion is derived from D/s oriented fictional novels... and married Dominants with submissives on the side. John

Arpig -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/7/2007 10:19:41 PM)
I think I would find it difficult to be in any long term relationship without an element of romantic love. That being said, I could see sharing a sub with my significant other without being romantically involved with the sub.

ExquisiteFeline -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 2:35:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I think it is also deeper as well to be in love with someone and yet still maintain a real level of D/s. The ability to combine both makes both stronger and more real. To me, playing the slaver role or the slave to the slaver roll is acting, roll playing. (again before the reactive nitwits thinks I am attacking being a slave I am not as I seek to own someone at that level as well) I think that having that power and ability to chain someone to the foot of your bed and both of you knowing you can and will at times do that but looking at your partner and saying "I want you in bed next to me as an inch away is too far" is exactly how I want to spend the rest of my life. You are beautiful... :)

SimplyMichael -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 7:59:49 AM)
Dear hobbit character, quote: ORIGINAL: Faramir quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I think it takes a bit of experience at trying to mix the two or to just be in the slaver roll to see how empty it is of love and emotion and to me it is an immature place to me, immature as in growing past it moves you to a better place emotionally. I'm not sure about that hommie. As much as I personally cannot comprehend a D/s relationship that doesn't lead, create, maintain, consist of eros love, I am not ready to ascribe "maturity" to that modality. It's your way, it's my way, but I know people for whom it is not their way, and your phrasing of immaturity to maturity valorizes our center and devalues other people's center. I'm also not sure this is related to experience--in my experience, it is a native mode, a natural inclination I have, rather than a place I've got to via learning, as part of pragmatism. I think what you describe briefly, the flash of longing at seeing another couple articulating in their actions intimacy and love, was really beautiful, but constructing it as a superior (more mature) mode relfects personal centering. I am glad you could grasp my "personal centering, valorizing, and devaluing other people's center. THAT WAS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT. I pretty much have the ability to you know like use big words and stuff to you know like communicate and shit. So when I say being unable to love another a primary D/s relationship is immature, I mean being unable to love another a primary D/s relationship is immature, which means that being unable to love another a primary D/s relationship is immature. Got it? Having the skills to create a complex relationship that blends both love and power exchange and keep it nurturing for both parties requires MORE skill than doing only one or the other. There ARE things in life that are better than others, just as D/s is better than abuse and I have no problem "devaluing" it, I have no problem saying the ability to combine D/s and love AND create a healthy nurturing relationship takes place on a higher level than doing only one or the other. Keep in mind that the reason we avoid making statements in the absolute is because most absolute statements are false but that isn't the same as saying all absolutes are false. Again, the point of the thread was "can love and D/s be combined". Perhaps you are thinking I mean anyone in any other sort of relationship is immature? The point was that doing love and D/s requires more skill/maturity not that anyone in any other sort of relationship is immature.

Faramir -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 2:50:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I am glad you could grasp my "personal centering, valorizing, and devaluing other people's center. THAT WAS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT. I pretty much have the ability to you know like use big words and stuff to you know like communicate and shit. So when I say being unable to love another a primary D/s relationship is immature, I mean being unable to love another a primary D/s relationship is immature, which means that being unable to love another a primary D/s relationship is immature. Got it? Having the skills to create a complex relationship that blends both love and power exchange and keep it nurturing for both parties requires MORE skill than doing only one or the other. There ARE things in life that are better than others, just as D/s is better than abuse and I have no problem "devaluing" it, I have no problem saying the ability to combine D/s and love AND create a healthy nurturing relationship takes place on a higher level than doing only one or the other. Broh, You were clear--just wrong. Mistaking your preferences for virtue is just that: a mistake. Thinking that because you like french toast and eggs at the same time, you are somehow evincing superior taste to someone who prefers french toast or eggs, is a jejune error. There are plenty of people, some of whom are regular posters here, who don't incorporate eros love into their D/s relationships. You are not more skillful than them. You are certainly not more mature because of it. Your kink is just that, your kink, and by insisting that somehow you are special because of it, better, more mature, more skilled, you are speaking about your ideal-ego, not the nature of D/s realtionships. Just like the person that bleats about how activity X is abuse because they don't like it, or that twue doms/subs do things their way, you are substituting personal preference for excellence. That's an adolescent cognitive mode that tells us about your emotional needs and insecurities ("But, but, my way has to be the twue way--I'm the center of the universe!"), but doesn't add to the dialogue here. You did much better in your first post, where you gave your emotional response to your preferences, helping to articulate the "why" of your personal preference. If you had left out the part about how speshul you are because you like crunchy peanut butter isntead of smooth it would have been a great post.

Grlwithboy -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 6:12:36 PM)
I define slavery as ownership and property. I personally experience too much cognitive dissonance between the notion of property and the notion of romantic pairing for me to consider marrying or pairing with a slave on a romantic basis. (A boy or a sub or a girl or a bottom, sure) I may or may not use a slave sexually. I may or may not have a slave function for me as a companion, an aide, a confidant. But it isn't romance. Personally this is a marker of maturity and restraint in my worldview. I've tried mixing and found it detrimental. I can also think of a few very high profile people whose relationships with their slaves are anything but "immature" because they aren't the romantic partner. Clearly, I'm not a dude, but the people I had in mind when I thought to myself "who else operates this way?" both are.

PAsextoy4u -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 8:19:11 PM)
I have heard of this too, and I wonder why so many Doms dont think or believe they can love their submissive and still be Dominant. It makes me question what kind of future I can create with a Dominant, if so many dont want to or wont let themselves fall in love with their submissives. I cant imagine a vanilla love relationship, because I seem to need Dominant energy in my primary relationship. Plus, I cant imagine satisfying sex without some kind of Dominant energy.

ECF -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 8:26:24 PM)
I personally see an advantage to a real relationship established because if it is just someone who you decide to try to scene with, let's say you've met them a few times, et cetera, how are you going to handle it if they experience a very harsh sub drop? Just pat them on the back and tell them it will be ok? Completely my opinion, but I'd say you have to at least have a little bit of a vested interest in the person to be able to handle the possibility of a situation like that, where they experience sub drop and need a person there who cares about them and can take care of them, but then again, the idea of sub drop is a whole other topic in and of itself.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 10:59:14 PM)
Farmir, I hate to break it to you but some behaviors and goals ARE better than others. If your goal is to have a relationship devoid of love and the risks and rewards that come with it, that is an immature relationship. Just like puppy love at 16 isn't a mature relationship, one devoid of the emotional intimacy and risks inherent in love isn't mature either. As for me placing myself at the top of the pile, I would have said the same thing when I was unable to achieve it and while I hope to achieve it this time it is still a goal I have yet to meet. However, don't let anything like facts get in the way of a good semantics rant although I think Mencken would laugh at you.

Grlwithboy -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 11:08:18 PM)
The OP seems to be equating love and romance. I've seen plenty of sucky and immature relationships, vanilla D/s and otherwise based on "romance." To me there's nothing lacking about the passionate platonic teamwork that goes into my M/s relationship. I love my slave. I am not in love with my slave in that bonded, come away and make babies with me wistful and powerful romantic tonic sense. I find that detrimental to my M/s. I find that having H function as "my date" confuses and interrupts the dynamic in ways as detrimental to him if not MORE than to me. I don't think that ignoring the confusion is a loving thing to do.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 11:26:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I hate to break it to you but some behaviors and goals ARE better than others. Agreed. This isn't one of them. quote: If your goal is to have a relationship devoid of love and the risks and rewards that come with it, that is an immature relationship. There is nothing immature about Mastering a slave without falling in love with them. I am in love with my partner, and I love my slave as one loves a pet. Both relationships are as mature as I am. Neither is better or more mature, they are different...and wonderful! quote: Just like puppy love at 16 isn't a mature relationship, one devoid of the emotional intimacy and risks inherent in love isn't mature either. So you are saying that romantic love is more mature than platonic love? The love of your brother is somehow less mature than the love of your wife? It seems to me you really haven't thought this all the way through. It is obvious you think your way is the best way...it is, for you, and no one else...but it takes a level of maturity to understand that...and I am not sure you have it. Taggard

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 11:29:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ECF I'd say you have to at least have a little bit of a vested interest in the person to be able to handle the possibility of a situation like that You are confusing "casual" with "non-romantic". My slave lives in apartment I pay for a block away from my home. I see her almost everyday. I know her inside and out. I am just not in love with her. I care for her, and I certainly have a vested interest in her, but I am not ever going to be in love with her. Taggard

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02