|
Faramir -> RE: Intimacy (8/10/2005 6:03:04 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Angrylibrarian
A lot of the difference I believe were talking about is decided in the definitions of slavery you place on your girl (versus a looser maybe part time version or deep submission) If you want (or she wants) intimacy as a pillar of her relationship to you that’s going to require a sort of independence that is not always, and I emphasize always, proper when training a slave but completely acceptable if negotiating with submissives over limits. (This ties into what warren is saying about the many different ways we go about this) A slave has to at many times come to grips with the idea that her wishes are totally irrelevant. If she 'require' intimacy well that’s going to be an issue when you are negotiating through the issues of total surrender. If you as the owner make a lot of concessions to her requirements and intimacy is one of them then you are basically defining slavery more loosely and if that works then its good.
Perfect example of someone misunderstanding their own framework for something universal.
Perhaps for you, authority and intimacy are in tension, but not for many of us - for many of us they are completely seperate continua. We can love to the nth degree and have absolute control, and there is no tension.
I have a son assessed with Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) by an LCSW. We were doing a 7-session assessment, and this detailed assesment included a test called the “Marschak Interactive Method.” When the LCSW outlined the model or framework for the test, I made a leap to D/s.
One model of parenting is a continuum, with “discipline” at one end and “nurturing” at the other. Since it is a continuum, an increase in the level of discipline or nurturing means a corresponding decrease in the other – you can provide structure for a child, you can nurture a child, or you can have a compromise/mix of the two in a proportion that adds up to 100%.
The Marschak test has a different model or framework – rather than a single continuum, discipline and nurturing are separate universes. The level of nurture for example might range from abuse to neglect at the extremes, with a healthy level of nurture in the middle, and in discipline from domination and indulgence at extremes with a healthy level of discipline in the middle.
It looks to me as if there are two competing models in our community. A lot of us think that love and domination form a single continuum, so you need to choose an end to hew towards – will you be “loving” (and therefore light on the Domination) or a heavy Dom with no place for love?
I saw a post at B.com a while ago perfectly capturing this model
quote:
“It is my humble opinion that the trappings of romanticism (sic) that you present do not have any place in a strickly (sic) D/s relationship. Moreso (sic), I have seen many D/s relationships implode when one or the other party fell head over heels in love.”
I utterly dismiss this model. The hard-ass part of D/s is completely separate from our ability to love and nurture.
If in fact they are separate universes, you can love/nurture and still enforce strict discipline. At that point you really can lean in close and say, with perfect sincerity, “I am going to hurt you for that, cunt” without any malice, and still nurturing her with a wide-open heart.
My word for it is “integration,” I think this faulty single continuum model leads two ways – either an emasculated dom who is hesitant to exercise his authority or even sadism (not that sadism is a requisite for PE), or a dom who cuts off their own humanity, insulates themselves emotionally in order to hurt and use and command.
I think a better, more accurate model of truly separate universes, discipline and nurture, can be a step forward in integrating ourselves in D/s
|
|
|
|
