Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM

Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (Full Version)

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

Message

cloudboy -> Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 2:10:24 PM)
I pulled the following from ASK A SWITCH. The thread there seemed to die on the vine. Said the Switch OP there: >I have found that if I am not in love I cannot submit to someone. And I mean, complete love and complete trust with prior friendship where the Dominant thinks of me as a person and friend first and a slave second. Only then can I give my all. But on the dominant side in the past.... I didint have to have love in the partnership..... < My question is, does LOVE play a lesser role on the DOMINANT side than it does on the SUBMISSIVE SIDE? Assuming love plays a lesser role on the Dominant side, is it because love interferes with sadism? Clearly the statement above presupposes its easier to be detached as a DOM and more difficult to be so as a SUB. Is this true? Might we conclude the expereince of the DOM is a cold one --- rational, calculating, intellectual, mean, controlling, punishing, using etc... whereas the experience of the sub is a hot one: exposed, vulnerable, emotional, and giving etc.... Any theories or anectodal experiences out there to shed light on these questions.

Sub03 -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 2:31:39 PM)
I think love does play a lesser role on the Dominant side. I think as slaves we love.honor and worship our Master's or Doms. They bring out and control what we are.....how could we not? Not that I am saying that Master's and Doms don't love and care for their slaves I just think it is in a different way then it is for the slave. Though i don't think the expereince of the DOM is a cold one, or, rational, calculating, intellectual, mean, controlling, punishing or using....I just think the Dom can be more detached than the slave can be. A Dom can Dom any slave with no problem. A slave can submit to another Dom that isn't her own but only because thier Master wishes for them to do so and the slave wants to please. But that is just my opinion....feel free to feel differently.

mstrcorky -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 3:00:52 PM)
I have known Masters and Mistresses over the years who could care less about their slaves, save for what the slave (sub) could do for them. I have met the ones who cannot begin to understand their slaves, don't respect them, barely care for them, abuse them ... and I do have my thoughts about that. However - not all Masters or Mistresses are like that. If I didn't love my slave, would I do everything within my power to keep them safe, healthy, sane, balenced, protected, and happy? Taking responsibility for a slave is an absolutely huge responsbility - why would I bother to accept that responsibility for someone I didn't love and care very deeply about? I do agree with the notion that slaves love their Masters/Mistresses differently than We love our slaves - but I do not see anything wrong with that - I think it's perfectly normal. Neither is better or worse than the other - it's just the nature of the relationship. How the heck do you measure "love" anyway?

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 3:28:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy My question is, does LOVE play a lesser role on the DOMINANT side than it does on the SUBMISSIVE SIDE? Not necessarily. quote: Assuming love plays a lesser role on the Dominant side, is it because love interferes with sadism? Clearly the statement above presupposes its easier to be detached as a DOM and more difficult to be so as a SUB. Is this true? Might we conclude the expereince of the DOM is a cold one --- rational, calculating, intellectual, mean, controlling, punishing, using etc... whereas the experience of the sub is a hot one: exposed, vulnerable, emotional, and giving etc.... Any theories or anectodal experiences out there to shed light on these questions. Many sadists DO find it difficult to allow their sadistic desires to get played out because they find it conflicts with past learning and expectations. Even on this site you constantly see subs say "He better not do THAT or I will kick his ass/be gone!" That can be very hard for a sadist to reconcile and be stable with. Make one wrong move and a sadist could be in serious trouble for the rest of his life. Given enough time and stability however, many sadists can reconcile their conflicts and be happy with hurting. A majority find their path is to be with someone who enjoys the pain as pleasure and can give pain as loong as they know the other person is directly enjoying it.

Smythe -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 3:46:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I pulled the following from ASK A SWITCH. The thread there seemed to die on the vine. Said the Switch OP there: >I have found that if I am not in love I cannot submit to someone. And I mean, complete love and complete trust with prior friendship where the Dominant thinks of me as a person and friend first and a slave second. Only then can I give my all. But on the dominant side in the past.... I didint have to have love in the partnership..... < My question is, does LOVE play a lesser role on the DOMINANT side than it does on the SUBMISSIVE SIDE? Assuming love plays a lesser role on the Dominant side, is it because love interferes with sadism? Clearly the statement above presupposes its easier to be detached as a DOM and more difficult to be so as a SUB. Is this true? Might we conclude the expereince of the DOM is a cold one --- rational, calculating, intellectual, mean, controlling, punishing, using etc... whereas the experience of the sub is a hot one: exposed, vulnerable, emotional, and giving etc.... Any theories or anectodal experiences out there to shed light on these questions. I think, simply, that there is more variability in the feelings of Domme-->sub than the other way around. As you say, cloudboy, the submissive is more vulnerable and so the feelings of love/adoration/complete trust almost HAVE to be there. From the other perspective, a Domme (or Dom) can be quite emotionally involved and loving, or can be cool and distant, or can be disparaging and superior. I am not sure that any of this has anything to do with the expression of sadism. As you know, the expression of sadism can easily exist in a loving relationship as long as it is managed properly by both people. Smythe

Sensualips -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 4:01:56 PM)
I actually find the opposite true. For me, bottoming is more passive. I need to be more familiar and have a deeper relationship with a partner to effectively top. I would need to have confidence in someone to submit, but that is not the same as being in love or even as completely trusting. Of course, I am not referring to that burning-belly master-is-my-life ownership the-one type submission as I have not personally experienced that. Not all dominants are sadists. Not all submissives need to be in love to submit. I think it would depend on the individuals, but I don't see the dominant role generally as being cold. I guess I would be more inclined to see the submissive role as typically being hot, but there seem to be lots and lots of exceptions.

la90066 -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 4:42:36 PM)
Stock answer, here: As with anything else, it depends on the individual. [:)]

aurora31 -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 5:14:58 PM)
For me love does play a strong role in the depth of my submission. I need to have confidence in ones ablity as a Dom...but when there is a strong bond is there, feelings of love and attraction then the level of my submission is so much deeper. aurora

Petruchio -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 5:46:03 PM)
It all depends on the persons.

kyraofMists -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 5:50:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy My question is, does LOVE play a lesser role on the DOMINANT side than it does on the SUBMISSIVE SIDE? Assuming love plays a lesser role on the Dominant side, is it because love interferes with sadism? Clearly the statement above presupposes its easier to be detached as a DOM and more difficult to be so as a SUB. Is this true? Might we conclude the expereince of the DOM is a cold one --- rational, calculating, intellectual, mean, controlling, punishing, using etc... whereas the experience of the sub is a hot one: exposed, vulnerable, emotional, and giving etc.... Any theories or anectodal experiences out there to shed light on these questions. Speaking from my own experience in my relationship with my Lord and alandra, love does not play a lesser role with him than it does for either alandra or I. The fact that he deeply loves us and would lay down his life for either of us does not inhibit him from being sadistic. In fact, I think the depth of the love and trust that the three of us have for each other enhances his sadism and our masochism. There is a vulnerability between us that allows us all to be completely free in expressing who we are and that is never more evident than in play when he is being his most sadistic. Knight’s kyra

newflowers -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 7:10:05 PM)
i have to question the definition of "love" in this instance. Is it love - are you so over him/her within a few days/weeks/months? i do understand this - one can become so emotionally attached so quickly. without this attachment, it is difficult, if not impossible to submit, but, i have learned (for me at least) this is not love. what does that mean "love"? newflowers

caitlyn -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 7:19:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: newflowers what does that mean "love"? Love: the opiate of the masses ... "that which does not kill us", but continually tries just as hard as it fucking can ... [;)]

Misstoyou -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 7:32:23 PM)
It's not necessary for me to love my submissive with a capital "L." (I am NEVER his girlfriend.) But it is absolutely necessary for me to like and respect a submissive as a person, before I abuse him. Go figure. [:D]

amayos -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 8:00:58 PM)
"He who loves more is the inferior and must suffer."

FiestyCouple -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 8:15:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy My question is, does LOVE play a lesser role on the DOMINANT side than it does on the SUBMISSIVE SIDE? Assuming love plays a lesser role on the Dominant side, is it because love interferes with sadism? Clearly the statement above presupposes its easier to be detached as a DOM and more difficult to be so as a SUB. Is this true? Might we conclude the expereince of the DOM is a cold one --- rational, calculating, intellectual, mean, controlling, punishing, using etc... whereas the experience of the sub is a hot one: exposed, vulnerable, emotional, and giving etc.... In my personal experiance, I find that both Dom and sub have a great deal of love, respect, and passion for the other. I agree with the previous posts that state the the love of a Dom/Domme is somewhat different than the love of a sub, but it is still love none the less. I think that BDSM "play" can occur with or without the love of course. I find that the total heart stopping submission is not possible without the earth shattering love, however, submitting to used by someone at the instruction of your One, can be done without the adoration of the one you're being given to. And of course, the standard "depends on the individuals and the individual relationships" clause still applies.

newflowers -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 8:31:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: newflowers what does that mean "love"? Love: the opiate of the masses ... "that which does not kill us", but continually tries just as hard as it fucking can ... [;)] so jaded, so cynical. i pose it as a serious question. i think it is entirely possible to be so involved, to want so much that we convince ourselves that we "love." for those you say that love must be part of the equation, what does that mean for you? newflowers

cloudboy -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 8:50:52 PM)
I will attempt a consolidated response, a shot at efficient posting. SUB03 states: >I think love does play a lesser role on the Dominant side.< I follow you here, but I could not exactly follow your reasoning thereafter. mstrcorky states: >I have known Masters and Mistresses over the years who could care less about their slaves, save for what the slave (sub) could do for them. I have met the ones who cannot begin to understand their slaves, don't respect them, barely care for them, abuse them ... and I do have my thoughts about that.< This is your lead, which is right on the threadline. Then you don't follow up with what your thoughts are. Maybe you are afraid of making sweeping statements or generalizations about others. So, clearly, in your opinion, a DOM can be much closer to say an Employer or Boss, than say a lover. I appreciate that you, however, need a more personal connection. >I do agree with the notion that slaves love their Masters/Mistresses differently than We love our slaves< How would you describe the differences? luckyalbatross states: >Many sadists DO find it difficult to allow their sadistic desires to get played out because they find it conflicts with past learning and expectations. Even on this site you constantly see subs say "He better not do THAT or I will kick his ass/be gone!" That can be very hard for a sadist to reconcile and be stable with. Make one wrong move and a sadist could be in serious trouble for the rest of his life. Given enough time and stability however, many sadists can reconcile their conflicts and be happy with hurting. A majority find their path is to be with someone who enjoys the pain as pleasure and can give pain as loong as they know the other person is directly enjoying it.< You don't really address the love dichotomy, if there is one, between the roles of top and bottom. Why can the Switch dom without love yet only sub with love? How would you explain this, and what does it suggest as a larger precedent? Smythe states: >I think, simply, that there is more variability in the feelings of Domme-->sub than the other way around. As you say, cloudboy, the submissive is more vulnerable and so the feelings of love/adoration/complete trust almost HAVE to be there. From the other perspective, a Domme (or Dom) can be quite emotionally involved and loving, or can be cool and distant, or can be disparaging and superior. I am not sure that any of this has anything to do with the expression of sadism. As you know, the expression of sadism can easily exist in a loving relationship as long as it is managed properly by both people.< Some sadists compromise their need to "go further" b/c they feel a loving affinity for their sub. Absent this love, it seems the cruelty factor could go up to better satisfy what the sadist wants for herself. But yes, I do well know what sadism feels like in a loving relationship, as you well know. sensualips states: >I actually find the opposite true. For me, bottoming is more passive. I need to be more familiar and have a deeper relationship with a partner to effectively top.< I can see this, bottoming can be quite passive; follow the orders of the DOM and retreat into self. The DOM, on the other hand, needing to be proactive, needs to engage the sub, else the DOM not know what buttons to push. I think this is true for DOMS who want to connect, and its less true for DOMS who want depersonalized submission. >Speaking from my own experience in my relationship with my Lord and alandra, love does not play a lesser role with him than it does for either alandra or I. The fact that he deeply loves us and would lay down his life for either of us does not inhibit him from being sadistic. In fact, I think the depth of the love and trust that the three of us have for each other enhances his sadism and our masochism. There is a vulnerability between us that allows us all to be completely free in expressing who we are and that is never more evident than in play when he is being his most sadistic.< Knight of Mists seems really cool to me, amd I can see how you get off on him --- I think he's about forging intense connections through intimate sadism. Clearly the two (connectedness and sadism) can blend together, but the blending is made possible by your positive response to him. I suppose this would qualify as compatible sado-masochism. Newflowers: >what does that mean "love"? < A deep stirring of the soul intimately connected to the beloved. It is a current deeper than sex and physical responsiveness to another. In terms of BDSM, it is a personalized centering on the beloved beyond just straight masochism, fetishism, service, or sadism. Misstoyou: >It's not necessary for me to love my submissive with a capital "L." (I am NEVER his girlfriend.) But it is absolutely necessary for me to like and respect a submissive as a person, before I abuse him. Go figure< Query: can a female supremacist fall in love? Maybe the highest you can go is respect and affinity. If you fell in love, you might actually find yourself on equal terms with the sub, and that could be a real problem indeed.

Misstoyou -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 9:00:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Misstoyou: >It's not necessary for me to love my submissive with a capital "L." (I am NEVER his girlfriend.) But it is absolutely necessary for me to like and respect a submissive as a person, before I abuse him. Go figure< Query: can a female supremacist fall in love? Maybe the highest you can go is respect and affinity. If you fell in love, you might actually find yourself on equal terms with the sub, and that could be a real problem indeed. And therefore, by extension, no Gorean male could ever love his slave either... An interesting hypothesis.

newflowers -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 9:09:19 PM)
quote: Query: can a female supremacist fall in love? Maybe the highest you can go is respect and affinity. If you fell in love, you might actually find yourself on equal terms with the sub, and that could be a real problem indeed. i disagree with this - i know from past experience that it is possible to have quote: A deep stirring of the soul intimately connected to the beloved. It is a current deeper than sex and physical responsiveness to another. In terms of BDSM, it is a personalized centering on the beloved beyond just straight masochism, fetishism, service, or sadism. your definition of "love" and it does not negatively alter the power frame. the intensity of emotion can make the dynamic more complete, deeper, but it does not necessarily cause those involved to become equal. the question is asked to make a point - when one says one "loves" a new (or newish - read less than a year or more) partner, is that really love or is it a surfiet of emotionalism, is it one's justification for remaining in or working with another within the m/s or d/s dynamic? it is possible to love someone known for a shorter time than my example, but i think often we convinve ourselves it is love because we want it to be so - not because it is. that is delusion and/or justofication - not at all the same even if it might feel like it for a time. newflowers

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 9:32:12 PM)
Hmmm, well I'm going to throw in my two cents. My view is and I'm speaking of my personal feelings. I become most angry and sadistic when someone I care about runs afoul. Expressing behavioural training is wasted on someone you don't care about. Why would you want to correct someone you didn't care about. It would be a waste of effort and time. I'd just write them off to being a dumbass and let them keep on screwing up (away from of course). If I care for someone, I feel the need to correct the behavior. Similiar to if you saw some snot nosed brat child yelling in department mall. You'd just say what a brat. If it was your child you'd take actions to correct the child. To not do so is not to care. Whether this takes the form of talking to the person, or beating them silly is just a measure of a individuals intensity. Now, I'm sure they're are doms that just like to torture without any point or care for the other involved. I don't see the point in that. And would say that is a truly dangerous person in a non-beneficial way for all involved. Afterall, if you are not growing, you are dying. What's to learn and grow from in a non-love/caring relationship.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875