RE: Loveless D/s.

RE: Loveless D/s. (Full Version)

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

Message

SirJohnMandevill -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/14/2008 5:52:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist I run across the occasional profile where the person says they don't want a boyfriend or girlfriend, just a harsh, strict owner. Do you think they really mean it? Why? Doesn't bother me if they mean it or not. Wouldn't be my kind of submissive, anyway. I need the feelings as well as the play. Les (Purveyor of Fine, Love-filled Kink)

ta2dqt -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/14/2008 5:53:12 PM)
I know I'M personally Not looking for "love", just a BDSM "partner". I consider it like a "workout" partner, or "activity" partner....... a friend..... yes...... but not "love"......... IF that were to "happen" I'm not opposed to it...... BUT "love" is not something I'm "looking" for at this site....... acctually....... I don't look for love at all........ ONCE for a LONG TIME...(few years) I DID look for love............ BUT what lots of "pple" say...... once you STOP looking........... It finds YOU.... and , yes......... it is VERY true..... I DO know THAT now from experience.

Leatherist -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/14/2008 6:09:51 PM)
I'm going to reply to you, since you seem one of the few on track with my exploration here. I take it you are probably not overmanaged, by the sound of it. And trusted to be competent at the owner's wishes. Does the structure and agreement actually end up making things LESS complicated for you overall?

BoiJen -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/14/2008 6:45:53 PM)
Yes the structure and agreement that the D/s the power dynamic is first and foremost makes things far less complicated. Often times I find that people who introduce romance end up negotiating and more often compromising the structure of their dynamic because of the need for romantic partners to be "equal." And while I think clear negotiation and clearand continuous re-negotiation is needed in any relationship...compromise isn't. If I wanted to compromise then I'd be romantic with the Lady in Charge. However, that seems to me to completely contradict the point of Her being "in charge." The whole point of D/s is that somebody is clearly in charge and somebody else isn't. One person's needs come before the other's and that same person's wants come before the other person's wants. If it didn't work that way then we wouldn't be calling it D/s...we'd be calling it something else. So the lack of romantic entanglement helps me meet THAT need in my life. For those who have a need for romantic love...more power to them. That is their priority. And that's awesome that they know that. I have a different need and I know what that looks like. Now as somebody else mentioned I am not opposed to romantic love. However, I'm not as open to it in this relationship as others seem to be. Some have called me a purist. I don't think so. I'll say again...I just know what I want. And that makes things SO much simpler.

Leatherist -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/14/2008 6:57:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen Yes the structure and agreement that the D/s the power dynamic is first and foremost makes things far less complicated. Often times I find that people who introduce romance end up negotiating and more often compromising the structure of their dynamic because of the need for romantic partners to be "equal." And while I think clear negotiation and clearand continuous re-negotiation is needed in any relationship...compromise isn't. If I wanted to compromise then I'd be romantic with the Lady in Charge. However, that seems to me to completely contradict the point of Her being "in charge." The whole point of D/s is that somebody is clearly in charge and somebody else isn't. One person's needs come before the other's and that same person's wants come before the other person's wants. If it didn't work that way then we wouldn't be calling it D/s...we'd be calling it something else. So the lack of romantic entanglement helps me meet THAT need in my life. For those who have a need for romantic love...more power to them. That is their priority. And that's awesome that they know that. I have a different need and I know what that looks like. Now as somebody else mentioned I am not opposed to romantic love. However, I'm not as open to it in this relationship as others seem to be. Some have called me a purist. I don't think so. I'll say again...I just know what I want. And that makes things SO much simpler. Some people make much ado about these "grey shades" Biojen. I wonder how much of that is simply rationalizing endless compromise-until nothing really means anything. I can't even count the number of times people have complained in these forums about "love messing it all up." Dominants who's romantic entanglements seemed to cuase them to lose sight of the very thing that drew their sub to them in the beginning-the attraction of an intensly focused, and rather simplified dynamic. One where you knew exactly where you stood with another person, what to expect. What to do, how to communicate. Then that seemingly firm foundation, turning to quicksand. While I never tout D/s as a substitute for basic relationship skills.....emotions are tricky and fickle. You need something more stable to have any real consistency.

KatyLied -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/14/2008 8:29:44 PM)
Here's my take on loveless relationships. And believe me, this is something I've struggled with. There is a gray area and it's not necessarily an area where people go because they've settled for less than what they want. Not everyone falls in love easily/often. Sometimes people get together and have a rewarding, life-changing relationship of respect and affection, where everything gels, but they are not in love with each other. Sometimes it grows into love, sometimes it doesn't. Maybe in their life, beyond or outside of that relationship they will find a love, maybe they won't. Would you have them suspend their life and not enjoy the relationship because it is loveless? I can have stable and consistent without love, I'm sure other people need to have love in order to make everything work. Maybe it depends on people and their personalities.

SailingBum -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/14/2008 8:38:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist Dunno,just made me curious. Especially in a place where people seem to think D/s is all romance and flowers. What gave you that idea? That concept never came across my mind. When I think of d/s, it's about getting what I want. Romance is not even in the top five of things that cross my mind in trems of d/s. very similar to a fuck friend BadOne

MistressNoName -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/14/2008 8:42:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist I run across the occasional profile where the person says they don't want a boyfriend or girlfriend, just a harsh, strict owner. Do you think they really mean it? Why? Sure, Why not? I think anything is possible. If you're ever curious enough to ask those who feel that way, you might get your answer. MNN Edited to add: P.S. Harsh and strict does not necessarily mean "loveless." Not wanting a boy/girlfriend also does not mean there is no love between Master and slave...just maybe not a romance.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/14/2008 9:13:18 PM)
I only got through the first two pages so my apologies if this is repeating anyone but...having perused what I did, I found myself wondering why people think not having a girl/boyfriend type of relationship means lacking connection?? The last thing I want is for my Master to be my boyfriend, or to be romantic. I don't want to hold hands and frolic down the ocean shore with him, I want him to Master me - to own and run my life as he wishes. I want to be his subordinate...to writhe at his feet...to love and adore and worship him the best way I know how...to feel his power and authority over me...to NOT be his equal and to strip away any possible pretense and enjoy a pure, raw, honest connection that doesn't need to use props such as roses and trinkets and smoochies to express. Those things just don't work in my world. They work splendidly in other people's worlds and that's great for them. But a boyfriend/girlfriend/romantic type of dynamic isn't the only way to make a connection, folks. There are many ways for spirits to collide and create something wonderful. There are many paths toward creating intimate connections and relationships. So to answer the OP, yes, some people mean it and other people like the fantasy but not the reality of it.

Leatherist -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/14/2008 9:51:05 PM)
Amen, stated with perfection and grace.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/14/2008 10:54:13 PM)
Thank you, Leatherist. I confess I was surprised at some of the comments assuming that not wanting a girl/boyfriend but wanting a strict owner must mean a desire for no connection, no emotion, no love and only some sort of superficial sex. I think someone can have all those things sans the romance, or any combination thereof.

Leatherist -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/14/2008 11:09:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie Thank you, Leatherist. I confess I was surprised at some of the comments assuming that not wanting a girl/boyfriend but wanting a strict owner must mean a desire for no connection, no emotion, no love and only some sort of superficial sex. I think someone can have all those things sans the romance, or any combination thereof. I'm used to this by now, tunnel vision. It seems to be based on a world view that is constructed of common stereotypes and assumptions. In allowing others to program us, we only have the ability to think as they do. Garbage in, garbage out. It takes a more independent processing unit to overcome that and expand the data base. [;)]

joy2u -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/15/2008 10:53:40 AM)
There's a difference between being a romantic and romancing someone. my Master is very much a romantic but, He doesn't romance me. He loves fresh flowers in His house. He loves candlelight. He has a great appreciation of art and nature. He shows and expresses His emotions and doesn't hide them from me. He brings home bouquets of fresh flowers but, they aren't for me. They are for His enjoyment. He lights candles but, they aren't to create "mood lighting" for my benefit. They are for His pleasure. He takes me to art museums because He likes to look at the pieces and admire them. He enjoys watching the sunset at the ocean or in the mountains or in the front yard. He owns me and He has no need to romance me. He uses me for His pleasure. If He chooses to take hold of my hand, it's because that's what He wants. He doesn't do it because i want Him to hold my hand. If He chooses to bite my hand, it's for His enjoyment. If He chooses to hug me, it's because He likes the feel of holding what He owns in His arms. He does what He wants to do with me and if that means going for many months with no sexual contact, at all, then that's what i live with and i accept that. If He makes a hot bath and lights candles and tells me to soak and relax for as long as i want, then that's what i do. But, it's not what i expect or need. If He tells me that He loves me, it's because that's the way He feels and He wants to tell me and, it doesn't mean that i am not His property. It just means that He loves His property. If He tells me, "get naked and get on your knees, whore", it's doesn't mean that He doesn't care about me. It's not an either or situation. He has every right to love what He owns and to tell me so, if He wants to. It's also His right to do what He pleases with His property, any time He wants and in whatever way He wants. Being a romantic doesn't mean that my Master doesn't also own me and use me the way He wants, including sadistically. It also doesn't mean that i expect or need my Master to be romantic with me. It's not about me and what i want or don't want. It's all about what He wants and it's my privilege and honor to be useful to Him in having what He wants and being whatever He wants, whether it's in the form of a quiet companion watching a mountain stream with Him or as a masochist whore taking a flogging from Him. joy Owned servant of Master David

Leatherist -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/15/2008 2:48:25 PM)
It's always better when it's not demanded.

Griswold -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/15/2008 5:02:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist I run across the occasional profile where the person says they don't want a boyfriend or girlfriend, just a harsh, strict owner. Do you think they really mean it? Why? Uh huh.

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/15/2008 5:15:59 PM)
Sure it'll work...but it'll only work for a short amount of time, unless the person is already damaged psychologically and believes they REALLY deserve it. I know no long-term relationships that are built on this. Master Fire

girlygurl -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/15/2008 5:19:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff For the same reason some folks just wanna get laid. They don't want or need any connection. Just the acts Jeff Ah yes, those were the days [8D]. Having multiple play partners and in it just for the sex weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! girly (in love = no more play partners)

chatondamore -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/15/2008 6:07:40 PM)
waves to BoiJen I can honestly say that i'm not looking for a "Loving" D/s relationship. I want a Master that doesn't feel as though I'm the most important thing in his life. Or feel that he needs to romance me with cards and flowers. That's nice and all, but I'd rather you stick needles in my flesh, thank you very much. I'll take care of all the sweet things, like adoring and massaging. I'm really rather partial to "mean men" that care more about having someone there whenever they want them. I was with my former Master for almost 2 years and I never felt as though I was in love with him. I loved him, but more as I would a close friend. I have a loving relationship. He's just simply not Dominant and that is something that I feel better about having in my life. And for the record, yes, the loving relationship knows about the not-loving relationships.

chatondamore -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/15/2008 6:10:51 PM)
dammit, that was a reply to the OP. Sorry, i'll figure this whole thing out eventually.

Reflectivesoul -> RE: Loveless D/s. (2/16/2008 1:14:29 AM)
~off topic~ chatondamore to reply to someone specifically, click on the reply button at the top right corner of their post.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875