RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple.

RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/8/2007 7:04:13 PM)
I agree that who we are/how our relationship works has pretty much zilch to do with what rules we have or what we DO. I agree that people seek external answers and approvals and thus end up boxing themselves in all over the place and making things more complicated. However, it's hardly not always the case that it's a "natural role" that people just fall into together. I've known tons of married couples who made the transition from a vanilla dynamic to a Ds dynamic together- and it wasn't a simple walk down the lane. As well, my relationship with my partner over just two years has gone through HUGE changes. Now, all these changes were "natural" in that they simply happened out of nowhere and we didn't expect them. But they did require adjustment and we did NOT simply naturally fall into who we are today way back when we began.

slaveluci -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/8/2007 8:50:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin I'm not saying that it is wrong if people want to have a list of a thousand rules they expect each other to conform to. What I am saying is that you can take all of that away and still have a D/s relationship. It is not the rules and protocols and actions that define what is and is not a D/s relationship. Often times I read the boards here and see people who are completely confused because they hear all the "you're supposed to's" and if their relationship or partner steps over those perceived lines they end up questioning if what they have is valid. What I am saying is that two people can apply what they wish and still have a relationship that isn't any less valid than the next. It doesn't matter if it fits the ideals of the masses or not. Bravo, Erin. Well said as usual..............luci

Wildfleurs -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/8/2007 9:14:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: AquaticSub Erin is not making fun of those who kneel in rice. No, I'm absolutely not. I am not trying to say what people as individuals should or should not require in their relationships. I am not saying what does and does not constitute a D/s relationship. What I am saying is that one can have a very simple dynamic without all of the outward displays and still have it be just as valid as the relationship that is very strict and outwardly ritualistic. No one should question the validity of their own dynamic based upon the expectations of others. If it is working for two people...and one is dominating and the other is submitting....it is a valid dynamic. Literally your last sentence of this paragraph contradicts what you say at the begining. You are defining D/s as being a dynamic where one dominates and another submits. And in your OP in the thread you define D/s for yourself as well when you say, "To me, a D/s relationship is two people who come together, one who is dominant because that is simply their natural position in an intimate relationship, one who is submissive because that is simply their natural position in an intimate relationship. They interact with each other from those perspectives." So really I just don't get it - you are defining D/s for you, which is great. I don't get what the issue is that other people have different (and to you) more complex definitions. C~

mistoferin -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/8/2007 9:20:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: AquaticSub Erin is not making fun of those who kneel in rice. No, I'm absolutely not. I am not trying to say what people as individuals should or should not require in their relationships. I am not saying what does and does not constitute a D/s relationship. What I am saying is that one can have a very simple dynamic without all of the outward displays and still have it be just as valid as the relationship that is very strict and outwardly ritualistic. No one should question the validity of their own dynamic based upon the expectations of others. If it is working for two people...and one is dominating and the other is submitting....it is a valid dynamic. Literally your last sentence of this paragraph contradicts what you say at the begining. You are defining D/s as being a dynamic where one dominates and another submits. And in your OP in the thread you define D/s for yourself as well when you say, "To me, a D/s relationship is two people who come together, one who is dominant because that is simply their natural position in an intimate relationship, one who is submissive because that is simply their natural position in an intimate relationship. They interact with each other from those perspectives." So really I just don't get it - you are defining D/s for you, which is great. I don't get what the issue is that other people have different (and to you) more complex definitions. C~ I'm not sure how you are reading them differently. In both instances I say D/s is a dominant and a submissive. One dominates, one submits. You're seeing something that isn't there.

Wildfleurs -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/8/2007 9:28:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin I'm not sure how you are reading them differently. In both instances I say D/s is a dominant and a submissive. One dominates, one submits. You're seeing something that isn't there. I'm not disagreeing with you on the content of your personal definition of D/s. I'm saying that its hypocritical to criticize people for their (to you) more complex definitions of D/s when everyone has a definition of D/s that will exclude people. For instance your definition is specific to people who are dominant because that is their natural position in an intimate relationship (your words, not mine). That excludes people who may not naturally feel that way in an intimate relationship but are doing it for other reasons. All definitions exclude someone. I find it strange to have a thread criticizing someone elses definition for exclusion when literally all definitions include and exclude some people. C~

mistoferin -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/8/2007 9:33:20 PM)
Wildfleurs, this is not a thread to exclude anyone, nor have I excluded anyone. The whole point of the thread is to say that you should not question the validity of your dynamic because it is different, nor should you question the validity of other's dynamics because they are unlike yours. You should not complicate your own situation by trying to mirror it to someone else's...do your own thing and so long as it's working for you and yours...be happy with that. That's the point.

rmanrr -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/8/2007 9:38:30 PM)
Greetings BRAVO....well said. We are all individuals first....then a couple or a poly family. Do what is right for you to do...the hell with the rest of em! Respect as respected, the golden rule. But in the end...do what is right for you. One person's pie is another person's mud so to speak.

Wildfleurs -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/8/2007 9:47:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin Wildfleurs, this is not a thread to exclude anyone, nor have I excluded anyone. The whole point of the thread is to say that you should not question the validity of your dynamic because it is different, nor should you question the validity of other's dynamics because they are unlike yours. You should not complicate your own situation by trying to mirror it to someone else's...do your own thing and so long as it's working for you and yours...be happy with that. That's the point. I never said you excluded people, I said your definition of D/s that you presented in both of those posts like any definition of D/s excludes people. And thus to have a thread that XYZ aren't neccessary for D/s by your definition is just silly since your defintion of D/s has requirements, just like the definition of D/s that you say is to complicated. I certainly think people should feel secure in who they are, the point of my post was to just point out the irony of the thread and this issue of exclusion thats inherent to all definitions. C~

AquaticSub -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/8/2007 9:56:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin Wildfleurs, this is not a thread to exclude anyone, nor have I excluded anyone. The whole point of the thread is to say that you should not question the validity of your dynamic because it is different, nor should you question the validity of other's dynamics because they are unlike yours. You should not complicate your own situation by trying to mirror it to someone else's...do your own thing and so long as it's working for you and yours...be happy with that. That's the point. I never said you excluded people, I said your definition of D/s that you presented in both of those posts like any definition of D/s excludes people. And thus to have a thread that XYZ aren't neccessary for D/s by your definition is just silly since your defintion of D/s has requirements, just like the definition of D/s that you say is to complicated. I certainly think people should feel secure in who they are, the point of my post was to just point out the irony of the thread and this issue of exclusion thats inherent to all definitions. C~ As far as I can see her only defination here is that "dominants dominate and submissives submit". She hasn't excluded anyone. All that she has said, over and over, is that people shouldn't judge other people's relationships by their own and that people shouldn't deem their own relationship bad because it doesn't live up to someone else's standards. Since when is saying "Live your own life without judging others or judging yourself by them" an exclusive statement? Nothing is needed for a d/s relationship except to have a dominant and a submissive. You don't need protocal but you don't need to go without it either. You don't need to kneel on rice to call it d/s but you certainly can insist on it for your own relationships. You don't need to get married to have a vanilla relationship but you certainly can. You don't need to have a child to have a vanilla relationship but many people do. If saying "you don't have to have these things but you certainly can if you like" is an exclusive statement, it's one I'm proud to add my own weight to, whatever that weight is worth.

Wildfleurs -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/8/2007 10:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub As far as I can see her only defination here is that "dominants dominate and submissives submit". She hasn't excluded anyone. All that she has said, over and over, is that people shouldn't judge other people's relationships by their own and that people shouldn't deem their own relationship bad because it doesn't live up to someone else's standards. Then all I can do is some copying and pasting for you. quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin To me, a D/s relationship is two people who come together, one who is dominant because that is simply their natural position in an intimate relationship, one who is submissive because that is simply their natural position in an intimate relationship. They interact with each other from those perspectives. quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs For instance your definition is specific to people who are dominant because that is their natural position in an intimate relationship (your words, not mine). That excludes people who may not naturally feel that way in an intimate relationship but are doing it for other reasons. Edited to add: I feel the need to add again that I'm not admonishing her for the content of her definition or even what her definition is - the point was to point out the irony, thats all.

AquaticSub -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/8/2007 10:17:45 PM)
To have a heterosexual relationship one must have a man and a woman. To have a homosexual relationship one must have either two women or two men. To have a d/s relationship one must have a dominate partner and a submissive partner. To have a d/d relationship one must have two dominants. To have a s/s relationship one must have two submissives. Sorry. I still don't see any exclusion. Just saying that a d/s relationship consists of a dominant (aka master/owner/grand poopah) and a submissive (aka slave/slut/pet/little bitch).

KnightofMists -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/8/2007 10:22:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin Wildfleurs, this is not a thread to exclude anyone, nor have I excluded anyone. The whole point of the thread is to say that you should not question the validity of your dynamic because it is different, nor should you question the validity of other's dynamics because they are unlike yours. You should not complicate your own situation by trying to mirror it to someone else's...do your own thing and so long as it's working for you and yours...be happy with that. That's the point. Wow... glad you made this post... I would of totally missed the point of this thread otherwise.

arayofsunshine55 -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/9/2007 12:23:15 AM)
I will speak for myself since I do that best. In many ways what we have is very simple. I am EVP to his CEO. He leads, I surrender. It is just who we are together. Wouldn't say it is "natural" since I could lead another just as easily, like any good manager. But it is who we are together. And none of the rest of it gets sweated. We don't do a lot of rules. We aren't heavy protocol. And it works for both of us. We do keep it rather simple. And yet vital. Passionate. Committed. Fun.

WhiplashSmile -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/9/2007 12:57:11 AM)
I agree with you that many people are making it D/s more difficult than it has to be. For instance TPE (total power exchange) relationships, does this mean a slave has to ask for permission every time to the use bathroom or not? Sure, a Master/Mistress can have such a rule in a TPE relationship if they so choose. But having or not having this rule by no means defines the relationship itself. Whatever happened to Dom/mes simply wanting to do things their way instead of trying to fit into a stereotyped image? Besides like any other relationship the expectations and rules and engagement often change and evol over time. I do think many people make BDSM more difficult than it really is over D/s relationship dynamics. I wonder how many Masters would whip thier little girls ass for calling then Honey or Babe at times instead of Daddy, Master or Sir. There are probally a few that insist upon something off the wall . "It's Lord Fuck Monster you worthless cheap fucking whore, now say Thank You Lord Fuck Monster for every strike of my crop on your wicked little misbehavin whore ass"... Wack Wack Wack... But seriously folks everybody has their own spins on things as well many people trying to follow the trendy in crowds. My Question is how Dom/me like is it to do what everybody else thinks you should be doing though? LOL...

kyraofMists -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/9/2007 4:09:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin 25 years of my life I have spent in relationships where I actively worked to please my partner first and foremost. When I am in a relationship my partner is "the man of the house" in all ways. Decisions regarding what we are going to do, what we are going to have for dinner, whether or not the house gets painted or resided, what time we will go to bed, when we will have sex, what kind of sex we will have, when and how we will play, what we will view on tv, where we will go on vacation, etc., etc. are his decision to make. He leads, I follow. When someone knocks at the door or calls on the phone selling something, my response is that they will have to speak to the man of the house....not because it is an easy way out of talking to a salesman...but because I believe that such decisions are not mine to make. I've kept the house, done their laundry, laid out their clothes, prepared their meals, given daily massages and foot rubs, participated in whatever sexual activity they enjoyed, ran their errands, cleaned their cars and motorcycles, made their home a pleasant and welcoming place to be, hosted their parties, accompanied them to and participated in lifestyle events, cared for them in sickness, listened to them, learned from them, laughed with them and loved them, etc., etc,. Everything I did, I did from a natural place inside of me that wanted to do all I could to please and fulfill their wants and needs. From my perspective, what you have just described is a set of orders/instructions/decisions and the protocols of how to carry those out. Your behavior when a salesman comes to the door is a protocol. Your behavior towards the "man of the house" is a protocol. I don't understand the aversion many people seem to have to the word protocol. I see so many people demonstrate protocol every day of their life and yet it is a word that generates a lot of negative reactions. I don't get it s Knight's Kyra

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/9/2007 5:29:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin To me, a D/s relationship is two people who come together, one who is dominant because that is simply their natural position in an intimate relationship, one who is submissive because that is simply their natural position in an intimate relationship. They interact with each other from those perspectives. i have been a strong advocate of that statement respecting all types of D/s relationships ...it's not my place to say what's "twue", "real" or merely a pen pal - too bad not many cannot leave things well enough alone.

Ayanaev717 -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/9/2007 7:09:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists From my perspective, what you have just described is a set of orders/instructions/decisions and the protocols of how to carry those out. Your behavior when a salesman comes to the door is a protocol. Your behavior towards the "man of the house" is a protocol. I don't understand the aversion many people seem to have to the word protocol. I see so many people demonstrate protocol every day of their life and yet it is a word that generates a lot of negative reactions. I don't get it s Knight's Kyra For me protocol isn't the problem. We all have rules and regs to follow, however when someone makes a comment to someone else about how they follow the rules and regs having no idea about the person or the relationship- then I call it as I see it, absolutely wrong. For example, let's say, I am in a relationship with someone not in my race. My parents explode, I am disobeying their orders and the laws of the universe according to them. Do I allow the simplistic "rules" of society and the socialization of my parents of 'staying in my own race' keep me from love? I could and be unhappy. Or I could do what makes me happy. Either they will respect me or they won't. In my opinion, it simply comes down to respecting on another from where each of us are. Always, A

sublizzie -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/9/2007 7:51:29 AM)
~ fast reply ~ What amazes me about this thread is how many people are complicating the very simplicity of what was said. It shows me some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

SirDominic -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/9/2007 8:39:26 AM)
quote: "My _____ just did _____. Is that a proper thing for a _____ to do?" This comment in your first post, mist, is the stumbling block. Yes, a D/s relationship is simple, for those with experience, who know what they want and find a partner more or less on the same page. The gooey globs hit the whirling blades when the newbies come here to ask exactly that question quoted above. For someone new to this lifestyle, this can all appear to be very complicated. It's not that they don't know the rules, what it is is that they don't have enough experience to have figured out what their own rules are going to be. We have all read real horror stories here where a submissive has been taken advantage of because the Top told them a "real" sub does so and so, and they didn't have the experience to realize they are being fed a load of crap. They come here to ask that question quoted above because they don't know how they should decide if it was a proper thing to have done. Those of us who have been doing this awhile need to be conscious that what is simple in our relationships appears extremely complicated to the ones new to this lifestyle. Namaste, Sir Dominic

mistoferin -> RE: Relationships and complicating what should be simple. (7/9/2007 8:32:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirDominic We have all read real horror stories here where a submissive has been taken advantage of because the Top told them a "real" sub does so and so, and they didn't have the experience to realize they are being fed a load of crap. Yes we have...and thank you, as a dominant, for stating that it is indeed a load of crap. But it goes beyond the newbies. I don't generally enter into negotiations with a dominant who is new, it simply would not serve my needs well. But I am never amazed at the number of them, even with several years in, who are still peddling that same load of crap.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875