RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou?

RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (Full Version)

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

Message

MsIncognito -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 6:05:10 AM)
I've been thinking on this since I read it yesterday afternoon and still haven't completely sorted out my thoughts and feelings on this. I think it ties into something I said in another thread a few days ago about how many submissives make the mistake of surrendering to their Master (and I'll use the term Master to mean Dom as well, I hate typing with slashes all over the place) rather than surrending to slavery itself. For me the conflict (if it can be called that) occurs between the rational/logical side of myself and the emotional/instinctual side of myself. The rational side says that serving simply because it is who you are is a noble thing - you are accepting and being true to yourself. The emotional side of me really wants the depth of the I to Thou connection and feels that it enhances the entire experience for me. In other words I can (and have) served someone that I liked and admired simply for the sake of serving. That, too, was a contractual relationship and there were times where I felt he was dropping the ball but I continued to serve to the best of my ability. However, come renewal time I chose not to renew our contract simply because I felt the level of effort being put into the relationship was not equal. Had I felt he was putting in as much effort as I, I likely would have renewed the contract as I did enjoy serving. I also had a relationship where there was an incredible person-person connection and I was motivated by being very focused on him. Unfortunately he was very new to D/s and wasn't able to provide the opportunities for service that I craved so it didn't work out either. Having experienced both seperately I'd have to say that ultimately for me there would be a combination of both. If I had to choose I'd still choose the first option (service for service's sake) rather than the second. However, I think the two together would work as a perpetual feedback loop - the focus on other insipiring service which in and of itself requires focus on other. It's early (for me). Hope that makes some sense.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 6:15:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1RottenJohnny Understanding how you identify I can see your point in regard to M/s. But to apply it to other relationships is a bit reckless, don't you think? No. quote: A relationship between a Master and a slave who serves only for their own self-interests seems incredibly empty for something that should create so much respect. Really? First off, being in love with someone in no way negates serving for your own self interests. After all, YOU are in love, YOU are feeding your own love with the relationship. YOU are the one who wants the love. Pretty self-serving. Secondly, relationships only work if we do understand and accept our own self interests. I wouldn't be doing this if I weren't this orientation that I am. Is that wrong? Should I submit to someone because I LOVE them, even if they are an abuser, even if they LOVE me? No, I need to understand what I need, what orientation I am, and get into that. Also, NOT being in love doesn't take away anything either necessarily. quote: How long before slaves start saying "It's just a job."? Depends on the slave. I know I wouldn't want someone to make a life commitment based on some feelings of love. Takes a lot more than that to make a relationship work long term.

sunshine333 -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 6:20:05 AM)
quote: Perhaps my notions of service are not as developed or nuanced as all yours, but if the one I serve does not merit my service, then how do I further my integrity by continuing to serve? I might as well leave and serve myself with integrity or better still, serve the community in freely given community service. good point, Walter. and i have applied that principal to my life. i spent years doing volunteer work because of my need (and presumed ability) to serve. i feel that there is a difference between service and slavery though ... at least in my own life. i can "serve" anyone. i can bring a total stranger a cup of coffee or help an old lady cross the street. my sense of compassion and altruism governs those actions. my slavery, however, is absolutely conditional. i will not agree to enslavement to a man who a) cannot participate in the exchance or b) is, in my eyes, not worthy of being treated so "royaly." i don't need to love a man to serve him. i do need to love a man whom i agree to give myself to though. i need to love, adore and respect him. i need him to be the kind of man who, when i look at him, i can't help but to make every effort to make his life easier and more pleasant. not because he demands it of me ... but because his integrity, intelligence, confidence, contribution to the world, authority (and his love for me) deserve it. humbly, sunshine

ErosPsyche -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 7:00:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsIncognito Having experienced both seperately I'd have to say that ultimately for me there would be a combination of both. If I had to choose I'd still choose the first option (service for service's sake) rather than the second. However, I think the two together would work as a perpetual feedback loop - the focus on other insipiring service which in and of itself requires focus on other. They do not understand how that which separates unites with itself; it is a harmony of oppositions like that of the bow and of the lyre -Heraclitus

Fawne -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 8:17:51 AM)
Interesting. I was taught slavery is a journey. The slave exists with or without the love master. White Fang knows. Integrity. Honor. Peace. Thank you Bill fawne

ErosPsyche -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 8:33:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross While this is true for all relationships, not just Ms, love has very little to do with making a relationship work long term. I'm still stunned by this - by the facile, out of hand dismissal of a considerable chunk of the world's philosophy and thought on the matter without any support or arguement. It's just a given that love is not meaningful in relationships. Kierkegaard, Khalil Gibran, Aquinas, Martin Buber, Jesus, Ghandi - all dismissed. While I wouldn't lump Plato and Aristotle in with that group, a close reading certainly suggests they say love (in different ways) as the primary motive force in relationships. I'm just flummoxed by a glib self-assurance that doesn't even bother to address other positions, but presents its conclusions as a priori assumptions. I'm very much in agreement with that body of philosophers who thought that love has everything to do with making relationships work, that it is the wellspring, the font, the animus for action and work in the relationship. Whether it is an ancient thinker, or a modern writer like Gary Chapman using the metaphor of a "love-tank" that when empty kills relationships, a lot of us think that love is what lets us, leads us and moves us to use skills and techniques to develop and maintain our relationships.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 8:48:24 AM)
Excuse me, when did I say love is never meaningful in relationships? I said love has very little to do with making a relationship work long term. I also said love is grand and I celebrate love.

ErosPsyche -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 9:12:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Angrylibrarian yeah it resonates. (I wish you had more pointed questions here because I think this is an important topic) And i think you answered your own question in that love of duty, devotion to duty often translates to love of mission, devotion to leader. Never let my broad, open-ended style prevent you from asking pointed questions - where do you think the heart of the matter lies?

Sunshine119 -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 9:27:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross While this is true for all relationships, not just Ms, love has very little to do with making a relationship work long term. It is interesting to note that arranged marriages last longer and are stronger than marriages that are created out of "Love". One could argue that the pressures of custom and the society in which those marriages are arranged are the reason. But why then would these relationships be stronger? Roles, commitment, and a sense of who each in the relationship is, creates the strong bond that lasts a lifetime. So, too, with those in Master/Slave relationships. Each person's role is clearly defined. There is security and peace that often cannot be achieved by those who do not know who they are. Fulfillment in knowing ourselves and having the ability and opportunity to reach self-actualization results in love for ourselves and love for the person helping us achieve that goal. I would suspect that is the case for both the Dominant and the Submissive in the relationship. Each needs the other to achieve their goals. Love? A by-product perhaps. Not necessary, but I suspect it happens in most long term D/s relationships. If the slave above were to continue in her current Master's service, I suspect that the feelings of self-actualization, long term, would result in gratitude and, yes, love.

MsIncognito -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 9:32:22 AM)
Admittedly, I haven't read every message in this thread but nowhere did I see LA state that she doesn't love her Master. She may or she may not, I don't know. All she said was that love has little to do with making a relationship work long term. quote: ORIGINAL: Sunshine119 If the slave above were to continue in her current Master's service, I suspect that the feelings of self-actualization, long term, would result in gratitude and, yes, love.

Jacques1000 -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 9:45:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Excuse me, when did I say love is never meaningful in relationships? I said love has very little to do with making a relationship work long term. I also said love is grand and I celebrate love. Love is not quintessential to a relationship being sustained, but it aids a great deal.

Belladonna82 -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 10:02:40 AM)
Love...can be a blessing or a curse...its all about the people involved and their emotional stability....

ExistentialSteel -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 10:36:59 AM)
I see both sides here. One side says that service does not require that you love the dominant while the other says that service can be much stronger if love is there. It is interesting that this thread zeroed in on the love aspects both pro and con so that tells me something in itself. Do I think every D/s relationship needs love? No, but personally, give me it to me. Sure this is my selfishness, desiring that the sub also love me with all her heart. Love, truth and beauty...that's all there is folks.

1RottenJohnny -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 12:45:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Really? First off, being in love with someone in no way negates serving for your own self interests. After all, YOU are in love, YOU are feeding your own love with the relationship. YOU are the one who wants the love. Pretty self-serving. I didn't say love negates serving for self-interests. I was simply saying that it would make my relationship feel very hollow to me without the emotional bond. quote: Takes a lot more than that to make a relationship work long term. Depends on the people involved. I guess you'd have to be in a situation where you had nothing BUT love before you'd know. I've seen it do some amazing things. Simply put, the way I see it is this: Love is created through honor, respect, trust, integrity, etc. It is something that adds flexibility not only to the rigidity of M/s but to any relationship. It allows for the absortion of the disappointments that inevitably occur because of our imperfections and misunderstandings of each other. It gives us the ability to get passed a transgression by either party. Liken it to grease in a machine. It isn't the reason for the existence of the machine but it's purpose is both singular and critical for the long term functioning of the machine. And more is usually better.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 1:09:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1RottenJohnny I didn't say love negates serving for self-interests. I was simply saying that it would make my relationship feel very hollow to me without the emotional bond. That's good for you to know about yourself. But it still takes a lot more than just that to make a relationship work long term. quote: Depends on the people involved. I guess you'd have to be in a situation where you had nothing BUT love before you'd know. I've seen it do some amazing things. Hmm I've seen determination, discipline, character and foresight do amazing things. quote: Love is created through honor, respect, trust, integrity, etc. Lots of people love dishonest, disreputable people who lack integrity and many other characteristics of what we consider positive things. quote: It is something that adds flexibility not only to the rigidity of M/s but to any relationship. Not for me. quote: It allows for the absortion of the disappointments that inevitably occur because of our imperfections and misunderstandings of each other. But people do this in relationships without love all the time, and plenty of people who love eachother don't let go of disappointments, yet still remain in love. quote: It gives us the ability to get passed a transgression by either party. Liken it to grease in a machine. It isn't the reason for the existence of the machine but it's purpose is both singular and critical for the long term functioning of the machine. And more is usually better. You can't quanitfy love like that. You can't say "If only they'd loved more, anything would have been possible" because that's not fair to the relationship or the people involved in them. That's also the reason why people remain in awful, dangerous relationships far beyond when reason would tell them they need to leave- because they try and hold onto some ridiculous notion that if they just love enough that they can overcome anything. Takes a lot more than love.

Chaingang -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 1:13:21 PM)
Wow, what a great thread! wipmebeetme100 and LuckyAlbatross have made some very astute points. Quoting the latter: "Love is grand, I celebrate love. But it ain't gonna solve problems, and it ain't gonna make a relationship work or fail. Takes a lot of other skills and understanding for that." It's all about the day to day, small picture stuff that makes the bigger picture gel or fall apart. You can build a "house of love" from termite infested and rotting wood - but how long will it last? Also, you have to think about love as an emotion in movement. Love is not of one kind, it is of various kinds in different stages of development. "Love" as a descriptor is pretty lame actually. I don't feel about different people the same way so why would I describe those various feelings for those different people with the vague possible meanings of one word? But the truly bigger picture has to do with a functional relationship - not love. I have a working relaionship to my bank, but it's not predicated on love. It's predicated on expectations being met or taking my custom elsewhere.

Chaingang -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 1:34:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ErosPsyche I'm very much in agreement with that body of philosophers who thought that love has everything to do with making relationships work, that it is the wellspring, the font, the animus for action and work in the relationship. Love may be (although it doesn't have to be) the "why" of some relationships. But love is not the "how" of any relationship. Think about it...

Kasia -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 1:49:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Hmm I've seen determination, discipline, character and foresight do amazing things. I agree totally with that. It sure takes lot more than love.

ErosPsyche -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 2:52:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross You can't quanitfy love like that. You can't say "If only they'd loved more, anything would have been possible" because that's not fair to the relationship or the people involved in them. That's also the reason why people remain in awful, dangerous relationships far beyond when reason would tell them they need to leave- because they try and hold onto some ridiculous notion that if they just love enough that they can overcome anything. Takes a lot more than love. As the adopted parent of severly attachment disordered children (one RAD and Complex PTSD), I've learned, to quote Nancy Thomas, that "Love is not Enough." Love doesn't replace therapy, love doesn't stop maladaptive behaviours, and love doesn't create attachment in those who are unattached. There are thousands of Russian and Romanian adoptees in America, a generation of terribly unattached, amoral, coldy deadly children, growing up that way because all their parents knew to give them was love, and love was not enough. But here's the rub: only love can move you to do the therapy, counter the maladaptive behaviours, build the attchment, do the work. It's more exhausting, in it's own way, than a 10 round fight - you feel like you cannot possibly go to therapy one more time, wake up and deal with some crazy torment one more time, wrestle spiritually with a child who burns with hatred for you because they never attached as a child. You can't do it - only love can. When your love tank is empty, you can't run anymore, can't keep on doing the work. Love has nothing to do with making a relationship work in the long term? It has everything to do with making a relationship work in the long term, because if you don't have love, storge love, philia, eros, agape - if you don't have some kind of love you will never, ever do the work. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, nor does not boast; it is not proud. Love is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

Chaingang -> RE: Slavery as Slavery or I to Thou? (11/9/2005 2:59:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ErosPsyche\Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, nor does not boast; it is not proud. Love is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. You gonna stick with that Pauline thing? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it does. Paul is talking about agape - spiritual love between christians and from god towards mankind. Paul did all kinds of other dumb shit too - like advocate celibacy so that people could be better missionaries of the "word." In short, the guy was not exactly a friend to eros love. This conversation will not make any sense unless you can confine yourself to what precisely you mean. Taking quotes about one kind of love and discussing it in context with another kind of love is basically the beginnings of chaos here. I tried to make a point of this earlier. I am not sure what you are saying here.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125