RE: Slavery without love? (Full Version)

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



Message

toservez -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/21/2008 11:37:16 AM)

I wanted to also mention we often confuse acts of affection with being loved and some people get confused and cannot see what the real actions of love are in a loving relationship as opposed to the outwardly communicated words and emotions.

My Master may have said “I love you” maybe five or six times in our year plus relationship. Even when I get kisses and hugs they feel more predatory in nature then warm and fuzzy. But his acts and decisions scream how much he cares for me that often early on in the relationship I was petrified I would not live up to his view he seemed to be forming of me.

So for me to serve in a long term relationship I need to know that my owner every day not moment would not want to be with any other in a long term relationship and that he cares about my safety and happiness. I do not need the romantic trappings or clichéd gestures. It is one of the reasons I love being in a severe power exchange relationship because for me I trust the actions as pure then when in a more normal relationship where I see often manipulations and actions that are specifically intended to get something specific.

So for me I see his love in his actions not in his communication or romantic gestures. I think for many this is common and for a few it would not be enough because they base the love of the other by the direct communication or action of it.



openlil1 -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/21/2008 1:22:45 PM)

Thank you all so much for your thoughtful contributions to this discussion. 

I believe in my original post I may have been unclear.  I am not now in a relationship with this man.  He has BEEN a trainer to me in the past.  I am not in a relationship at all now.  But i have been wondering whether my past interactions with dominants from whom I received affection (which didn't become long term relationships) may have indicated that the trainer was correct in his assertion that a loving relationship is not what will truly allow the slave to surface, that perhaps such a set-up would lead me to have expectations whereas my focus should be completely on fulfillment through service and obedience.  I'm actually starting to embrace that concept more and more as I read through your thoughts.

I appreciate your perspectives very much!





celticlord2112 -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/21/2008 1:23:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: openlil1

A longtime mentor/trainer insists that a slave in the midst of self-discovery and needing still to peel back ego needs "to be worked hard and often without the possibility of love." Assume that this nascent-stage slave has accepted her internal slave and wants to free it fully. She has always sought affection from dominants but has not found a relationship that works. Should she still be looking for a vanilla/M/s blended relationship? Should she eschew the "loving dominant" for an intense, intelligent and spiritual, very experienced man or woman who may be able to usher her through her descent? Opinions from experienced Masters would be most welcome.


Military leaders win when they value their troops.

Corporate leaders win when they value their employees.

Dominants "win" when they value their slaves.

Any training that does not proceed from this basic truth is of no value whatsoever.



celticlord2112 -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/21/2008 1:26:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: openlil1

Thank you all so much for your thoughtful contributions to this discussion.

I believe in my original post I may have been unclear. I am not now in a relationship with this man. He has BEEN a trainer to me in the past. I am not in a relationship at all now. But i have been wondering whether my past interactions with dominants from whom I received affection (which didn't become long term relationships) may have indicated that the trainer was correct in his assertion that a loving relationship is not what will truly allow the slave to surface, that perhaps such a set-up would lead me to have expectations whereas my focus should be completely on fulfillment through service and obedience. I'm actually starting to embrace that concept more and more as I read through your thoughts.

I appreciate your perspectives very much!





There is no "slave". There is a human, who wishes to be a slave.



antipode -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/21/2008 1:35:34 PM)

I don't believe in the
quote:

vanilla/M/s blended relationship
relationship. To me that is too much of wanting one's cake, and eating it. Vanilla and M/s are, to my mind at least, two very different ways of relating to one another. Having said that, I am sure there are people who run their lives like that quite successfully, as there are those who are married to one another for 50 years, a thought that abhors me. There is nothing wrong with having a vanilla relationship with one person, and a M/s relationship with another. Saves the contortions. If you have a submissive need, as well as a need for love, nothing says that should all be combined - I have a sports car as well as an SUV.



celticlord2112 -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/21/2008 1:38:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: antipode

I don't believe in the
quote:

vanilla/M/s blended relationship
relationship. To me that is too much of wanting one's cake, and eating it. Vanilla and M/s are, to my mind at least, two very different ways of relating to one another. Having said that, I am sure there are people who run their lives like that quite successfully, as there are those who are married to one another for 50 years, a thought that abhors me. There is nothing wrong with having a vanilla relationship with one person, and a M/s relationship with another. Saves the contortions. If you have a submissive need, as well as a need for love, nothing says that should all be combined - I have a sports car as well as an SUV.


Excepting personal preference and desire, there is nothing that says all cannot be combined.



Leatherist -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/21/2008 1:40:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: antipode

I don't believe in the
quote:

vanilla/M/s blended relationship
relationship. To me that is too much of wanting one's cake, and eating it. Vanilla and M/s are, to my mind at least, two very different ways of relating to one another. Having said that, I am sure there are people who run their lives like that quite successfully, as there are those who are married to one another for 50 years, a thought that abhors me. There is nothing wrong with having a vanilla relationship with one person, and a M/s relationship with another. Saves the contortions. If you have a submissive need, as well as a need for love, nothing says that should all be combined - I have a sports car as well as an SUV.


Excepting personal preference and desire, there is nothing that says all cannot be combined.


Pretty much. I find that you don't need to compartmentalize if you can combine practicality with creativity-and a dash of common sense. No need to haul more people and complications in than can be avoided-just to avoid work.



SailingBum -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/22/2008 2:50:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

The single biggest mistake I see subs making, is this.

Trying to use another to validate thier fantasy-rather than actually complying with the desires of another.


Yep yep and ohfuckingyep

BadOne



Leatherist -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/22/2008 3:38:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

The single biggest mistake I see subs making, is this.

Trying to use another to validate thier fantasy-rather than actually complying with the desires of another.


Yep yep and ohfuckingyep

BadOne


I know, I'm just such a BASTARD.  [:)]



Redoubt -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/22/2008 4:57:55 PM)

First off, kudos for such a good question.

Now if the trainer says: You need to explore the slave, you need to be slave without reciprocation, and you sense the truth in his words... there's something to this. But you should always remember that you need to be happy, if this means that you gain fulfilment in service then that is the lesson you should take away from this.

There will be masters who would disagree, that someone who submits themselves fully to them is to be cherished and loved (I'd count myself among them) but there are some who believe that the purity of the service is what needs to be experienced by some - in other words, you need to explore that submission and find out where it takes you.

Have I seen something like that work? No...but do I believe that a girl can serve as a slave and gain fulfilment solely from the service? absolutely.




KnightofMists -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/22/2008 6:11:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: openlil1

A longtime mentor/trainer insists that a slave in the midst of self-discovery and needing still to peel back ego needs "to be worked hard and often without the possibility of love."  



sooooooooo  just how successful has he been with this approach? 

I consider myself to be enjoying alot of success with my relationship between Alandra and Kyra.  A relationship that very much has love as a critical part of the dynamic.



goatmilkfriend -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/22/2008 9:18:43 PM)

 before i met my master (whome i love) i was so far from the happily collard obedient bitch that i am today that i had never had an o and i thought i didn't like sex. On the other hand, however, he is regularly mentally abusive and occasionally physically abusive outside the bedroom which most would say nullifies the lovingness. So, perhaps love is not a constant factor



lilacs -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/23/2008 4:15:01 AM)

~FR~

Please let me assure you that feeling love does not in any way change how much Sir can push me when he chooses to.

There may be some Dominants who do not wish to 'love' the ones that they require service of.

There may be some submissives who do not wish to 'love' the ones they serve.

I can agree that a person can dominate someone or submit to someone where love is not a part of the relationship.  However, a relationship does not require the absense of love.  If you crave a vanilla connection and more traditional feelings of "love" in addition to a D/s dynamic you can find it - it does exist and craving it makes you no less of a slave.



Justme696 -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/23/2008 5:32:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: openlil1

A longtime mentor/trainer insists that a slave in the midst of self-discovery and needing still to peel back ego needs "to be worked hard and often without the possibility of love."   Assume that this nascent-stage slave has accepted her internal slave and wants to free it fully.  She has always sought affection from dominants but has not found a relationship that works.   Should she still be looking for a vanilla/M/s blended relationship?  Should she eschew the "loving dominant" for an intense, intelligent and spiritual, very experienced man or woman who may be able to usher her through her descent?   Opinions from experienced Masters would be most welcome.


In the gorean lifestyle...and even outside there are slaves that serve with out love. IF you can handle it..do it.
But in general I think every one needs some love...especially when you want to become partners in life.



CuriousLord -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/23/2008 12:22:01 PM)

Love's important for me.  Is it for you?

You're suffering an illusion right now in the lifestyle you're living.  Which is cool as it appears to be what you want.  Now, the question is..
-Do you want your illusion to have love in it?



DesFIP -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/25/2008 8:47:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: openlil1

lead me to have expectations whereas my focus should be completely on fulfillment through service and obedience. 



That way lies unhappiness. You may be totally focused on service and obedience. You are still going to start hallucinating if you aren't allowed sleep. Still going to become weak and then drop dead if not given healthy food. Still going to be extremely unhappy if treated 24/7 as a worthless object.

A certain amount of basic selfishness is required if you are going to be able to fill someone else's needs.

Doing wiitwd requires you being strong in yourself. Including strong enough to stand up for what you need, for what you believe. I find it interesting that instead of looking inward as to why you sabotage any relationship that includes love, affection and caring, you find it easier to claim that you don't/shouldn't need those things. Because the issues that prevent you from having a happy, successful, loving relationship will still be there even in a cold, nonloving relationship.



PsyVamp -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/25/2008 6:08:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


Military leaders win when they value their troops.

Corporate leaders win when they value their employees.

Dominants "win" when they value their slaves.

Any training that does not proceed from this basic truth is of no value whatsoever.


Aside from not liking to deal in absolutes, I agree with the basic principal written above.

For me an M/s relationship would not be complete without mutual respect and attraction.  The attraction need not be romantic, but anyone who will devote themselves to me so that I may take better care of them... well, you could see the cycle here.  I would cherish anyone that becomes that important in my life.
Love?  Yes.  In love with?  Not necessarily.

Lady Jag



Leatherist -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/25/2008 7:31:46 PM)

There is a difference between valuation and infatuation.

It's a good idea to know why.



MasterSteel007 -> RE: Slavery without love? (2/25/2008 7:39:41 PM)

It's always better when your Master spanks you, then pounds you unmercifully and then...
Kisses and cuddles you afterwards...wouldn't you think so slave-pets?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125