RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance

RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (Full Version)

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

Message

ECF -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 11:32:57 PM)
You love her though, you're just not IN love with her. I guess that's sort of a weird thing to try to differentiate, but it makes sense to me.

Grlwithboy -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 11:41:03 PM)
I think there's a real lack around language when it comes to love. I definitely love my slave, but when I say "it's platonic" the cultural understanding of that word is watered down to mean someone you have lunch with and kiss on the cheek.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/8/2007 11:51:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy I think there's a real lack around language when it comes to love. I definitely love my slave, but when I say "it's platonic" the cultural understanding of that word is watered down to mean someone you have lunch with and kiss on the cheek. It takes a certain amount of maturity to understand the concept of platonic love. In Plato's eyes, platonic love was the highest form of love, deeper and more meaningful than even physical or emotional love. But this is a bit too profound for Hallmark, so they just keep slapping red hearts on everything to keep it simple. Taggard

Faramir -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 6:46:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy I think there's a real lack around language when it comes to love. I definitely love my slave, but when I say "it's platonic" the cultural understanding of that word is watered down to mean someone you have lunch with and kiss on the cheek. I think there is very much a sematic and linguistic issue at hand here. English uses one word, "love" to indicate multiple denotations of various types, states and degress of mutuality, also depending on context and prepositional phrasing. For example, if I understand Taggard correctly, he's using a standard prepositional phrase ("in love") to distinguish between eros (romantic) love and other forms of mutuality. If we were Attic Greeks, then in this case language would be an aid to us. We could much more easily distinguish between the storge love (affection) we have for those close to us, familiar to us, that we love like sister/brother, pet, servant, hometown, etc., or eros love, the head over heels romance love that poets such as Neruda speak of, the love of Eros and Psyche, the "But I'm in love!" love. Or indeed between philia and agape love, between the friendship love that Henry referred to in his "We happy few" speech and the love Plato was so found of writing of in The Republic. I can't speak for Taggard, but my guess from his comments is that the love he has for his wife is eros love, and the love he has for his slave is some combination of storge love and agape. I think there is value in understanding that English uses prepositional phrasing and context to mark multiple denotations or meanings, whereas many other languages use different words to mark out those different signifieds. I love the incredible flexibility/error-transmission of English, but in a discussion like this it can be confusing.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 7:38:57 AM)
quote: If we were Attic Greeks, then in this case language would be an aid to us. We could much more easily distinguish between the storge love (affection) we have for those close to us, familiar to us, that we love like sister/brother, pet, servant, hometown, etc., or eros love, the head over heels romance love that poets such as Neruda speak of, the love of Eros and Psyche, the "But I'm in love!" love. Or indeed between philia and agape love, between the friendship love that Henry referred to in his "We happy few" speech and the love Plato was so found of writing of in The Republic. Great explanation in English...but I thought that couldn't be done. While it may differ for your, when I say "love" I don't mean the sort I might have for my sister or brother let alone a dog and while you may have had trouble grasping that, I doubt many of our fine readers did.

Grlwithboy -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 9:15:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael quote: If we were Attic Greeks, then in this case language would be an aid to us. We could much more easily distinguish between the storge love (affection) we have for those close to us, familiar to us, that we love like sister/brother, pet, servant, hometown, etc., or eros love, the head over heels romance love that poets such as Neruda speak of, the love of Eros and Psyche, the "But I'm in love!" love. Or indeed between philia and agape love, between the friendship love that Henry referred to in his "We happy few" speech and the love Plato was so found of writing of in The Republic. Great explanation in English...but I thought that couldn't be done. While it may differ for your, when I say "love" I don't mean the sort I might have for my sister or brother let alone a dog and while you may have had trouble grasping that, I doubt many of our fine readers did. It's not an issue of grasping. It's an issue of you denigrating the "quality" of other possible relationships because yours is so damn correct. One of the most mature, durable, and visionary M/s relationships I can think of is between a man and a woman who love one another deeply and aren't even of the logical orientations which would allow this. The slave has a female romantic partner. I suppose they might "grow up" someday, huh? How is this any more enlightened than someone who comes along saying "all slaves must kneel X hours a day by the foot of their Owners' beds" and other relationship validity criteria du jour?

SimplyMichael -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 9:51:07 AM)
Grlwithboy, Interesting point, I don't do polly and wasn't addressing poly as it is just outside of my understanding. If you thought I meant it HAD to be a male dominant and a female submissive then I appologize for that confusion, I meant any monogamous relationship. Lastly, I stated this before but let me restate it once again. I am speaking of the ABILITY to combine the two speaking to the maturity level of someone. Obviously if "that" partner hasn't come along and someone has some casual partners on the side, that doesn't make the person's relationship skills any less. As for my "perfect" relationship, I don't recall stating mine quote: is so damn correct. let alone implying mine was perfect. The thread wasn't about a specific relationship but about the concept of blending D/s with love. That is a goal I seek, one I have yet to attain although as I have stated before I have high hopes for this one. quote: How is this any more enlightened than someone who comes along saying "all slaves must kneel X hours a day by the foot of their Owners' beds" and other relationship validity criteria du jour? I think we would all agree that a relationship without abuse is not as good as one without it. We DO have standards and criteria for validity. We worry about consent on some level, the meeting of needs, etc. While there is a broad band of what we accept, I don't think there are many here who would say ANYTHING goes. The reason I believe what I do about relationships and love have been stated prior and I believe they are a valid criteria, you clearly don't but don't pretend we don't have standards, we are only debating as to where to draw the line.

MadRabbit -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 2:34:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I think we would all agree that a relationship without abuse is not as good as one without it. We DO have standards and criteria for validity. We worry about consent on some level, the meeting of needs, etc. While there is a broad band of what we accept, I don't think there are many here who would say ANYTHING goes. The reason I believe what I do about relationships and love have been stated prior and I believe they are a valid criteria, you clearly don't but don't pretend we don't have standards, we are only debating as to where to draw the line. Michael, you know I respect you and think highly of your posts, but however, I am going to have to disagree. Your making a subjective opinion and claiming its objective. We can easily determine that my pecan encrusted seared duck with black currant sauce takes more skill and ability than a frozen cheeseburger to make. We can then say that the duck DOES require more skill and ability to make. However, if we were to say that the duck is BETTER than the frozen cheeseburger because it takes more skill and ability...this is subjective even though we have concluded that the duck does in fact take more skill and ability to make. We're using one set of standards determine "better or worse", but at the same time other people can easily determine the frozen burger is in fact better by using their personal preference for its taste or the quick amount of time it takes to make it as the standard. We can all agree that a relationship without abuse is better than a relationship with abuse if we all agree on the standard used to determine that is in fact better. Someone who was in fact an abuser and enjoyed abusing women could easily say that a relationship with abuse is better than one without it. His opinion wont be any more right or long than ours because the opinion is subjective.

Grlwithboy -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 2:57:12 PM)
The duck sounds better to me than the burger. It is possible to hold a fairly crappy or uninformed or wrong opinion - you gave a good example of one. But I think comparing the "romantic love" standard to the "abuse" standard is a bit of a red herring. I reiterate, in some cases eschewing romantic love in favor of a purity of M/s dynamic is the harder and yet more appropriate thing to do. In some cases it may be a total avoidance of a feeling of entanglement, a self-imposed limitation which cuts off important possibilities etc. etc. In other cases is limits the slave's sense of duties, entitlements, hones his/her focus, and shows them they do not hold the emotional sway with their D or M that they would if they were "a date." or "a partner." For some people the notion of property and partnership are at odds. For me they are. I say this on the basis of seeing what the creeping up of romance can do to a slave's head and heart and switfly applying the brakes, though not without having to work to re-direct some stuff! For which I have been thanked, and it seems to be correct in my case. I don't think this is the option of someone lacking maturity, care, or willingness to accept consequences. It has made my slave understand and trust me more. It has refined the way we work together. And again, while the question may be addressed to a M/f dynamic, I think one can see this working across the gender lines. Simply saying "I don't mix romantic love and M/s or D/s" doesn't suggest whether your relationship is intense, committed, or otherwise. And to assume that someone who doesn't does so on the basis of not being able to versus choosing not to, well, that's a lot of assumption.

MadRabbit -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 4:04:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy The duck sounds better to me than the burger. It is possible to hold a fairly crappy or uninformed or wrong opinion - you gave a good example of one. But I think comparing the "romantic love" standard to the "abuse" standard is a bit of a red herring. I reiterate, in some cases eschewing romantic love in favor of a purity of M/s dynamic is the harder and yet more appropriate thing to do. In some cases it may be a total avoidance of a feeling of entanglement, a self-imposed limitation which cuts off important possibilities etc. etc. In other cases is limits the slave's sense of duties, entitlements, hones his/her focus, and shows them they do not hold the emotional sway with their D or M that they would if they were "a date." or "a partner." For some people the notion of property and partnership are at odds. For me they are. I say this on the basis of seeing what the creeping up of romance can do to a slave's head and heart and switfly applying the brakes, though not without having to work to re-direct some stuff! For which I have been thanked, and it seems to be correct in my case. I don't think this is the option of someone lacking maturity, care, or willingness to accept consequences. It has made my slave understand and trust me more. It has refined the way we work together. And again, while the question may be addressed to a M/f dynamic, I think one can see this working across the gender lines. Simply saying "I don't mix romantic love and M/s or D/s" doesn't suggest whether your relationship is intense, committed, or otherwise. And to assume that someone who doesn't does so on the basis of not being able to versus choosing not to, well, that's a lot of assumption. For clarification, I wasn't trying to imply that M/S relationships without love do in fact require less skill or maturity. In all honesty, I don't know and we don't have some objective scale in which we can determine that in these forums. Due to our inability to determine it, it boils down to opinion and I personally cannot say who's is right or wrong. I was just simply saying that trying to imply that "M/S relationships with love are in fact better because of X, Y, and Z" is in fact some universal standard that we have all collectively agreed to go by when making our subjective opinions is erroneous

KnightofMists -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 4:34:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy The duck sounds better to me than the burger. Hell no... give me the burger... even if it's MacDonalds... well those aren't really burgers are they?

SimplyMichael -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 5:30:12 PM)
Madrabbit, Thanks for your post as you used the perfect analogy. I am NOT saying that the more skillfully prepared dish is better (romantic love and DS) simply that it requires more skill than the burger. Some people don't like duck and some days you feel like having a burger. I am NOT saying one relationship is BETTER than the other, simply that successfully combining love and D/s requires more skill and maturity. Grlwithboy, quote: Simply saying "I don't mix romantic love and M/s or D/s" doesn't suggest whether your relationship is intense, committed, or otherwise. I agree quote: . And to assume that someone who doesn't does so on the basis of not being able to versus choosing not to, well, that's a lot of assumption I am not saying that combining love and D/s is the only way to go, only that being able to do so requires more skill than doing one or the other.

KnightofMists -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 6:52:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Madrabbit, Thanks for your post as you used the perfect analogy. I am NOT saying that the more skillfully prepared dish is better (romantic love and DS) simply that it requires more skill than the burger. Some people don't like duck and some days you feel like having a burger. I am NOT saying one relationship is BETTER than the other, simply that successfully combining love and D/s requires more skill and maturity. I completely agree..... BUT I have to wonder... who will think a Abused Relationship is Better than one that is not an abused relationship. also.. the logic seems to indicate that... if you have Multi-relationships.. it would take more skill to successfully combine love and D/s or M/s as the case maybe. Now being a person that is Poly.. this sure makes me seem highly skilled and mature.. But.. enough of ego... I don't think this logic works.. for as a person that is in multi... I don't actually believe that it takes more skill or mature. than someone in a mono relaitonship. And I don't think that it neccessarily takes more effort either. I was in one relationship of alot of years before Kyra came along... and in comparison to then and now.. I don't think I put any more effort in... I put all the effort I can before Kyra.. and I put all the effort I can with Kyra... so it's not effort.... I suppose I am more skilled... but isn't everyone more skilled as they grow in a relationship... regardless if it's Poly or Mono. I don't think my skills gained have made the difference per say. I don't know.. I am not so sure that skill and maturity is the right answer. Seems something is missing

Faramir -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 7:04:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I am NOT saying one relationship is BETTER than the other, simply that successfully combining love and D/s requires more skill and maturity. That's intensely stupid. 1) You are saying one is better than the other. "Maturity" is a value signifier--we privilege maturity as good, valorous, desirable, and devalue immaturity. Saying "My preferences require maturity" is saying what you like is better. Your statement is an absurd contradiction. 2) Prove that having a D/s relationship characterized by eros requires more skill than a D/s relationship characterized by storge or agape. Say something thoughtful and intelligent in support of your position. Justify your claim with something at least mildly persuasive.. Bleating out an assertion over and over again doesn't make it true.

KnightofMists -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 7:13:02 PM)
ok.. hit me.. what is wrong with the logic of this.... the analogy doesn't reveal an aspect that needs to be touched .. new analogy One.. You Write a Novel Two.. You complete a complicated mathematical equation. Both require skill... but Different skill sets. Inaddition.. a person with the aptitude for English is going to do much better writing the Novel as compared to the Equation. Vice Vrs for a person that has an apitude for Math. So... one with aptitude for Math is going to have preference to do Math etc. However, that is not to say that a person that has an apitude for Math can't write a Novel... in fact some do It might take them more effort to achieve the desired results than someone with an English aptitude. But they still can get the job done. So back to the Duck.. a person that can make Duck will do very well at it.. but he might stink at making a good Hamburger.. or it just might mean he has to make extra efforts to get the job done. His skills for making Duck might help him in some ways.. but it might hurt him in others. It's not a question of having greater skills .. maybe just different skill sets. Of course.. when one looks at a Abused Relationship and an Unabused Relationship... It is difficult to comprehend that just different skill sets.. because there is an overwhelming feelig that one is indeed better than the other. This of course.. translates to Being in a D/s relationship with Love as compared to one without. It is difficult to comprehend that just different skill sets are required, because there is an overwhelming feeling that one is better than the other.

PAsextoy4u -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 8:32:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Madrabbit, Thanks for your post as you used the perfect analogy. I am NOT saying that the more skillfully prepared dish is better (romantic love and DS) simply that it requires more skill than the burger. Some people don't like duck and some days you feel like having a burger. I am NOT saying one relationship is BETTER than the other, simply that successfully combining love and D/s requires more skill and maturity. ********8 Awwww... crap... Now I have to look for a Dom with skill AND maturity... LOL... That sure makes it harder... And Im not sure Im following the difference between loving a sub/slave and being "in love" with a sub/slave.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 8:55:42 PM)
KoM, quote: One.. You Write a Novel Two.. You complete a complicated mathematical equation. Both require skill... but Different skill sets. We are, or at least I am, talking about two skill sets, the skill to have a healthy loving relationship and the skill to have a D/s relationship. Many have one or the other, plenty have a blend of both, very few have both in abundance. Look at the boards here, not a perfect sample but in my experience and that of many others, the makeup of the boards here is if anything over represented with couples and yet couples are still far less common than singles. Of those couples, how many are more than a couple of years old? My friends who are competing in the Master/slave competition have been together three/four years and are considered an "old" couple by many. Clearly doing a D/s relationship of any sort isn't easy. Back to the cooking analogy, while I am sure there are chefs somewhere making burgers who could work at Chez Panisse, there aren't many and they CHOSE to work doing burgers even though they could do more advanced/complicated food, probably after having done it and decided it wasn't for them. I am sure if you wanted to order a burger at Chez Panisse you couldn't get one but only because they have a fixed menu, but any other fancy restaurant could fix an amazing burger, however, take your average burger flipper and they would be lost with a whole duck, would have no idea how to make a reduction, etc. D/s requires a lot of relationship skills, love requires a lot of vulnerability, doing both requires a lot of skill, more than doing either one by themselves. So if you find it easy KoM, my hat is off to you. I find it hard as hell and hope I have what it takes to pull it off as the woman I am now with is amazing, combining the best of the women I learned on and I hope to hell to pull it off and to be looking into her eyes many many moons from now, blissfully in love with my slave.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 9:57:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I am not saying that combining love and D/s is the only way to go, only that being able to do so requires more skill than doing one or the other. So you are saying it requires more skill to have a relationship that includes both D/s and romantic love (as you have written than this is the only kind of love you are talking about)? than it does to have a relationship that is purely based on romantic love or a relationship that is purely based on D/s? If that is what you are saying, while it might be true, it has little to do with the topic at hand. What I am saying is that it takes just as much skill to combine platonic love or fraternal love and D/s as it does to combine romantic love and D/s...do you agree, or do you think that romantic love takes some extra effort that is not required with the other two? In my experience, and I have had slaves whom I have loved romantically, it was much easier to dominate them when they loved me...love is quite a powerful tool, and romantic love tends to blind those who feel it. Getting someone to obey you merely because you are will it, without the lubrication of love, is much much harder... Taggard

texancutie -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 10:12:31 PM)
Hmmm...well I think that is really beautiful.!!! Thank you for posting Michael!. It is rare that I find anything like this online. And there is probably a very good reason too. I think that the kind of relationship you describe is something that many people hope to find. I know that is what I was searching for, and I am happy to hear that some people are able to find it. I love the fact that he can be really harsh with me, but then hold me close to him when he spanks me to the point of it being not what I would want...but it is what he wants. But then he can read me well anyway...so it all works out. Balance is very important when you want this to work for real.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/9/2007 10:39:51 PM)
Taggard, You bring up an interesting point but first you wrote: quote: What I am saying is that it takes just as much skill to combine platonic love or fraternal love and D/s as it does to combine romantic love and D/s...do you agree, or do you think that romantic love takes some extra effort that is not required with the other two? I think it takes extra skill. quote: In my experience, and I have had slaves whom I have loved romantically, it was much easier to dominate them when they loved me...love is quite a powerful tool, and romantic love tends to blind those who feel it. The question is did you love them? One sided love is easy, loving back is harder. quote: Getting someone to obey you merely because you are will it, without the lubrication of love, is much much harder... Part of the problem is that we are speaking of theoretical relationships or at least relationships you and I haven't seen, you haven't seen mine and I haven't seen yours. I would discount any relationship that consists of the submissive hoping to turn a non loving relationship into a loving one. I have seen a few where the submissive truly served to serve and could have served anyone she wanted but chose to serve in a platonic capacity. Frankly, I was more impressed with her submission than his dominance. Again, this falls back to ability, I think the ability to manage and dominate someone in that capacity requires a great deal of understanding of motivations, communication, etc, but that without the romantic love it is still easier because one is not emotionally tied to the person providing service.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.100586E-02