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

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



Message

Slipstreme -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/9/2006 9:53:42 PM)

very interesting discourse thus far. I would have to agree with Cloudboy on a few of these. But at the same time with Smythe on the subject of sadism. I know it is because I care about the other person involved that I dont go as far as I would want to (and lack of experience). But who knows? As in the case of Knight, kyra and alandra, perhaps with the right person.

I believe though, for a successful, fufilling Master/ slave relationship, as is happening with two very close friends of mine, love has to be there, on both sides. Just seems to be the glue to hold the mesh together. Although the expressions of that love, is different on each side.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 5:49:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Slipstreme
I believe though, for a successful, fufilling Master/ slave relationship, as is happening with two very close friends of mine, love has to be there, on both sides. Just seems to be the glue to hold the mesh together. Although the expressions of that love, is different on each side.

For some people it is, for some people it isn't. For me, love is not the foundation of a Ds or Ms relationship and love rarely ever does much to make a relationship work. And everyone expresses love differently in any relationship.



cloudboy -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 7:08:31 AM)


You are very smart to hang me out to dry on the meaning of "LOVE." I'm only going to dig my hole deeper by trying to define it. I took one shot, and I'm not about to take another. I get your point on the subjectivity of the whole project.




cloudboy -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 7:18:52 AM)


>love rarely ever does much to make a relationship work<

Its funny to see you characterize it as a negative force. I don't disagree, but the irony in your suppositioon is kind of funny. My neighbor firmly believes that love is a disease. (romantic love)

>For me, love is not the foundation of a Ds or Ms relationship<

Well, if love was a prerequisite to the foundation, that's no small speedbump to building one. I don't think love is a prerequisite to me either, but I will say this ----- when you experience love and D/S --- it changes your patterns.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 7:55:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Its funny to see you characterize it as a negative force. I don't disagree, but the irony in your suppositioon is kind of funny. My neighbor firmly believes that love is a disease. (romantic love)

What on earth gave you the impression that I characterized love as a negative force?

I said love rarely does much to make a relationship work.

Dancing rarely does much to make it snow. That doesn't mean dancing is negative.

quote:

Well, if love was a prerequisite to the foundation, that's no small speedbump to building one. I don't think love is a prerequisite to me either, but I will say this ----- when you experience love and D/S --- it changes your patterns.

Perhaps it does. I didn't say they couldn't coexist. I said love is not the foundation. For some people, love is necessary for any serious commitment in their life. I love my partners but none of them are my owners.



amayos -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 8:03:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

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.


Loving something needn't mean you're on equal terms with it. Inequality and love exists every day within human and human-animal relationships. If she is a female supremacicst, that is her way, but this doesn't suggest she cannot love a slave if she chooses to.



veronicaofML -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 8:09:27 AM)

"love is for those that have the time to" nancy sinatra-1960's

WHY does everyone keep bringing love into this?

if I wanted vanilla...I would have stayed vanilla.
I fail to grasp this..

I am no domme or dom...I am a SERVICE ONLY house slave...but "I" feel if ya have-to bring all that romantic mushy b.s. into this..you are just vanilla...
but that is MY view




amayos -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 8:32:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: veronicaofML
I am no domme or dom...I am a SERVICE ONLY house slave...but "I" feel if ya have-to bring all that romantic mushy b.s. into this..you are just vanilla...
but that is MY view


While it is true love needn't exist in Master/slave relations, the idea that love is merely romantic and mushy bullshit is a bit extreme, and discounts an entire dimension in the Master/slave interaction. I tend to favor the very willing, very loving slave.



veronicaofML -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 9:36:28 AM)

I tend to favor the very willing, very loving slave.
=======

YOU are entitled...

enjoy

but this little gray duck aint got any truck with it.
yes.........."I" am extreme.......I like it that way.
just like "I" have not had sex since 2001. "I" have grown above carnal desires. my hormones dont control me. "I" could care less.
so far...in MY world???? EVERY female "I" have ever been involved with plays that guilt trip b.s.---"oh i gave you the best time of my life..."
argh!
if it was the best? i hate to hell to see the worst.........damn anyway........talk about a crock...
it's only ..love.. as long as things go THEIR way....when it doesnt they take off...

love my eye.......when pigs fly.!!!


MY view

take care



Mercnbeth -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 10:35:57 AM)

quote:

My question is, does LOVE play a lesser role on the DOMINANT side than it does on the SUBMISSIVE SIDE?


I've been actively participating in this lifestyle for a long time. During that time I've had a number of different partners at varying levels of intensity. Starting out, I tried to be casual and not concern myself with bothering to know my partner. I though it would be easy since I heard it argued that there is supposed to be a distinction between BDSM activity and sex. I found out to me there isn't. BDSM, even during my "discovery" period, was at minimum foreplay if not a key focal point of my sexuality. I achieved some sense of satisfaction from the physical BDSM activity, but without sex being involved it was shallow. Conversely, I feel the same regarding sex without BDSM. At an early age even my "vanilla" always had at least a few chocolate sprinkles. Once I discovered that about myself and realizing is was a 'hard-wired' connection, I made a decision to only play, all the connotations considered, with someone I was attracted on a level beyond physical attractiveness, or complimentary physical desires.

From that point, in no case did I ever participate in a session with someone that I didn't have an emotional connection. I still don't. Did I "love" every partner? No, but I knew them better than just a casual acquaintance. I interacted with them socially. We were "friends". We knew each other. We had a "relationship", albeit at a much less intense level than what I share now with beth.

Personally, I find it impossible to interact with someone in the context of a scene who I don't know. I always needed to have an emotional and/or mental connection in order to experience the physical sensation. When I used to try doing so, I got the same thing out of it as I do lifting weights or any other physical activity. Once I decided to avoid those experienced I missed many opportunities because of this "quirk". I determined that for me, satisfying physical BDSM experiences required knowing more about my partner than their scene name. BDSM to me was never focused on the physical. Sure the physical was an important part, but emotions and feelings had to be there. For me, they had to be there first.

The disadvantage in feeling this way is that more time is required to establish this type of a connection. I would never, and have never, played with someone I met for the first time at a club, regardless of the wonderful opportunities that present themselves. Sure, I've joined into a "birthday spanking" but I never take someone up on the offer to; "do to my slave what I just saw you do to beth." I explain to them that I can't for two reasons. The first is selfish, I know I won't achieve my "Dom-space" with someone I don't' know, and who I know should not, and can not, assign to me the required unconditional trust. The other reason is the other slave would be disappointed. There is no way they would feel the same as beth even if each action was duplicated. An essential ingredient is lacking; the emotional and mental connection.

Do you need love? NO, but it's FANTASTIC if you do. However I would debate from the affirmative that having some emotional connection with your partner results in a more satisfying BDSM session.



MsCece2u -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 11:13:39 AM)

Speaking from personal experience I have to have a "connection" with my submissive. Just this last week I released a submissive from consideration because I felt no connection. I didnt do it lightly believe me. she has admitted that she loved me from 4 months into the relationship. So for over a year I have been trying hoping that something would click, that a connection would be there. But nothing. Though she wanted to continue and to stay with me I didn't feel it was fair to her to garner false hope. I just couldn't think of her as a submissive for me. Was it easy no not by a long shot. Will I miss her the answer to that is yes. But I feel that as a Dominant it would have been wrong of Me to hold on to her when I wasn't able to care for her in the way a submissive deserves.



Padriag -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 11:14:29 AM)


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?

From my experience it depends on the dominant, there's no universal answer for this one. I have know dominants for whom love had nothing to do with it at all nor did they want it too. I've known some who go to the extreme of not wanting any emotional attachment with their submissive, even to the point of seeing them only as an object. I've also known others for whom love was an intergral part of what they do, for them the relationship just wouldn't work without love being involved, it was part of the dynamic for them. And then there are a lot who fall somewhere inbetween.

One thing I think does tend to be universally true is that dominants tend to rule their emotions, rather than be ruled by them. That may sometimes give the appearance of not feeling love as deeply as the submissive, when in fact they may feel it just as intensely.

For me personally, love and emotion is part of the equation and I relate very well to what Merc has to say about the role it plays in his relationships. I've never cared for casual play partners either and for very similar reasons. Its just they way it works for me. But that's me and I'm not everyone, so you have to get to know each dominant as an individual and understand how it works with them, find what fits.



cloudboy -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 12:13:31 PM)


>What on earth gave you the impression that I characterized love as a negative force?

I said lWhat on earth gave you the impression that I characterized love as a negative force?

I said love rarely does much to make a relationship work.

Dancing rarely does much to make it snow. That doesn't mean dancing is negative. <

Love is to a relationship as dancing is to snow? I don't think so and I don't think your logic professor would follow this either. When you said, "love rarely does much to make a relationship work," you were making a judgment and observation, and it was not a positive one and it was not, as you seem to want to claim, a neutral/factual one either. There's irony in your view b/c its the opposite of what most people think, nonetheless, there is a basis to thinking love complicates the shit out of relations (so avoid it at all costs) or to love not being needed or foundational to D/S relations.

>Perhaps it does. I didn't say they couldn't coexist. I said love is not the foundation. For some people, love is necessary for any serious commitment in their life. I love my partners but none of them are my owners.<

I'm not trying to box you in, just understand what you think.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 12:17:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
There's irony in your view b/c its the opposite of what most people think, nonetheless, there is a basis to thinking love complicates the shit out of relations (so avoid it at all costs) or to love not being needed or foundational to D/S relations.

Uhhh where did I say or imply anything CLOSE to "love complicates the shit out of relationships"? I think you're reading into things.

For me love simply is a state of being. Skills are what makes relationships work long term, communication, trust, security, compatibility, all that. You can have all the love in the world for someone and still have no chance of making a relationship work with them.

You can call that negative, I call that simple truth and understanding.

I've also said that I celebrate love, I LOVE love. I simply deal with it on its own terms.

As far as love not being needed or foundational to Ds relationships, I have been consistent throughout in saying that for some people it is and for some people it isn't.



cloudboy -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 12:28:30 PM)


>I've been actively participating in this lifestyle for a long time. During that time I've had a number of different partners at varying levels of intensity. Starting out, I tried to be casual and not concern myself with bothering to know my partner. I though it would be easy since I heard it argued that there is supposed to be a distinction between BDSM activity and sex. I found out to me there isn't. BDSM, even during my "discovery" period, was at minimum foreplay if not a key focal point of my sexuality. I achieved some sense of satisfaction from the physical BDSM activity, but without sex being involved it was shallow. Conversely, I feel the same regarding sex without BDSM.<

It would seem like when Dominance is a pathway to intimacy, which is how I would describe your experience, love is a necessary component. I think this is a meaningful distinction and you definitely shed light on the question's presented.

I think this distinction is a good one:

>Personally, I find it impossible to interact with someone in the context of a scene who I don't know. I always needed to have an emotional and/or mental connection in order to experience the physical sensation. When I used to try doing so, I got the same thing out of it as I do lifting weights or any other physical activity.<

What you seem to be saying, is that if you are not tied into the sub, you cannot experience any true satisfaction. I can flip this around, and say that if my Domme doesn't enjoy what she does with me, I cannot feel satisfied either --- I key off her investment. If a Domme is un/less-invested w/me, then the experience I have is more tactile, fetishistic, and fantasy driven (I extrapolate and project) as opposed to losing myself in the personhood of the DOMME.




cloudboy -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 12:46:10 PM)


>Uhhh where did I say or imply anything CLOSE to "love complicates the shit out of relationships"? I think you're reading into things.<

Without getting too tedious, I was just trying to deconstruct your statment:

"love rarely does much to make a relationship work"

If we made this a slogan, people could find a million ways to interpret it, and their interpretations would probably not be what you meant or implied.

Language has a life of its own, and I took your language and explored its possible meanings. My intent was not to tell you what you meant or tell others what you meant, but to explore what you put out there. Once authors put words out there, they lose control over them. Ironically, this goes for DOMS and SUBS alike. This truth is particularly vexing for politicians, and its why they so specialize in saying absolutely nothing.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 1:00:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Language has a life of its own, and I took your language and explored its possible meanings. My intent was not to tell you what you meant or tell others what you meant, but to explore what you put out there. Once authors put words out there, they lose control over them. Ironically, this goes for DOMS and SUBS alike. This truth is particularly vexing for politicians, and its why they so specialize in saying absolutely nothing.

That's very true. But there are "reasonable possible extrapolations" and "Halley's comet couldn't have made that orbit extrapolations."

At any rate, I think I've explained and clarified my point on this enough for you to understand and not need to extrapolate at all.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 1:08:14 PM)

quote:

It would seem like when Dominance is a pathway to intimacy, which is how I would describe your experience, love is a necessary component. I think this is a meaningful distinction and you definitely shed light on the question's presented.

I think this distinction is a good one:

>Personally, I find it impossible to interact with someone in the context of a scene who I don't know. I always needed to have an emotional and/or mental connection in order to experience the physical sensation. When I used to try doing so, I got the same thing out of it as I do lifting weights or any other physical activity.<

What you seem to be saying, is that if you are not tied into the sub, you cannot experience any true satisfaction. I can flip this around, and say that if my Domme doesn't enjoy what she does with me, I cannot feel satisfied either --- I key off her investment. If a Domme is un/less-invested w/me, then the experience I have is more tactile, fetishistic, and fantasy driven (I extrapolate and project) as opposed to losing myself in the personhood of the DOMME.


Cloudboy,

With semantic differences we agree. Semantics being the emotional requirement always being defined as "love" in the context of your statement; "love is a necessary component". Did I "love" each and every person? Not by my definition, but if by yours, I don't find I need to argue the point. It's only that I don't want to depreciate the value of the word "love" by saying I gave it or got it in the same frequency as my BDSM experiences.

I'd agree with the way you identify your satisfaction on a sliding scale contingent upon the connection your Domme has with you. Felt the same for my experience from the other end of the flogger. I agree further with your use of the term "investment" in the process. Whether the expense of meeting a long distance contact, or the time spent to get to know someone well enough to have a connection with them before play; you are investing something valuable. Like fiscal investments not all of them produce a return on that investment. In the case of people, when both have something of value invested, they usually work harder to a common goal. A basic common goal would be to come out feeling good from the physical experience. Enjoying the feelings and sensations from an emotionally invested scene; the entwining of naked, sweat covered bodies, panting from exhaustion, who need an "alt/ctrl/delete" re-boot to get up; is a much better goal to me than simply undoing the bonds, shaking hands and saying; "gee that was 'nice'. What was your name again?" Not implying exclusivity of requiring emotional attachment to hot sweaty sex or BDSM play, but for me - it is.

Yes, in my case, if I'm not "tied into" a person I do not get much out of the process. Getting "tied-in" takes time and effort. I believe it's worthy of the investment. If you want to call this investment "love", I'll concede the "small l" version and reserve the "Big L" for beth.



amayos -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 1:50:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: veronicaofML

so far...in MY world???? EVERY female "I" have ever been involved with plays that guilt trip b.s.---"oh i gave you the best time of my life..."
argh!



Indeed, I can see the point you make here.



sothernnyte -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 6:49:32 PM)

wow...love and D/s

i dont think the Dominants necessarily love less, perhaps just in a different way. i think most must have a connection somehow. many times i have found there is no love... at least not in love, in a D/s relationship. that is not to say it is a bad thing. it's almost like saying that BDSM is about the sex, when in fact it is not that at all

i have loved in a D/s relationship...been in love yes, she was a sub as am i.
have i loved my Domme(s),....yes but not in the "i'm so in love with You" sense of the phrase.

if you are lookin for love in this lifestyle... i think it is wise to see One that longs for the monogamous style relationship. and yes, They are out there. i have known several.

was i hurt when released? yes....but so did my Domme. the reasons for the breakup were not about the love we had for one another but more for the well being emotionally for each other. if She couldnt give me what i needed, She felt it better to separate back out as to remain friends. A Wise Woman

sincerely
sothernnyte



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.100586E-02