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

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



Message

LadyJulieAnn -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 7:06:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: veronicaofML

"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




People are bringing "love" into this because that was part of the topic and people are discussing their experiences/ideas related to love and D/s.

Be well,
Julie



IrishMist -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 7:06:41 PM)

quote:

Assuming love plays a lesser role on the Dominant side, is it because love interferes with sadism?


I can not speak for anyone else except myself and my own experiences...but I would say no. In my personal experience, the love that was felt by the Dominant enhanced the sadistic side...made it more so and not less.

quote:

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....



why is it always assumed that Masters/Dominants are not exposed, vulnerable, emotional and giving? Seriously, that is something that I would really like to have answered.



Duste -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 7:23:57 PM)

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

quote:


why is it always assumed that Masters/Dominants are not exposed, vulnerable, emotional and giving? Seriously, that is something that I would really like to have answered.


Well, it's not exactly traits that other look for when on the search for a Dom.



veronicaofML -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/10/2006 9:15:53 PM)

why is it always assumed that Masters/Dominants are not exposed, vulnerable, emotional and giving? Seriously, that is something that I would really like to have answered.
=====

go ya one better....

why is it assumed all slaves are open to attack? SOME of us...esp---baby boomers...are prone to being old enough to take care of ourselves and are not...by nature.."vulnerable"...to anything...
I know I'm not...but yeah...I am old street urchin so I am usually a lot tougher hide...than the average joe walking the street.



LadyJulieAnn -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/11/2006 4:48:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Duste

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

quote:


why is it always assumed that Masters/Dominants are not exposed, vulnerable, emotional and giving? Seriously, that is something that I would really like to have answered.


Well, it's not exactly traits that other look for when on the search for a Dom.


I would think that a submissive would want a "human being" as a Dom/me...

Be well,
Julie



KnightofMists -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/11/2006 10:33:56 AM)

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 will start off by making a strict distinction of being a Dominant with a relationship and being a Sadistic Top. Of course one can be a Dominant and a Sadistic Top within the same relationship but they don't necessarily co-exist in a particular relationship, but often do. I would also add that "Love" is a highly subjective term. What is "Love" to one could be nothing more than affection for another. Having a clearly understanding of what is Love to oneself is an important consideration in coming to terms with ones Sadistic desires as well as ones Love for another. As kyra has stated, my love for my two girls actually enhances my sadistic desires with them. But, even more importantly, my love of self has an even greater impact in enhancing my sadistic desires. My love of self motivates me to care for who I am.. to engage in the actions and relationships that bring me happiness and peace.



So the question "Does Love interfere with Sadism?"

This is my definition of Sadism with the BDSM context.

"Sadism is an act in which gratification is obtained by inflicting physical or
mental pain on a Consenting Moral and Healthy Person(s) and/or on oneself.

within my definition the concept of love doesn't become readily apparent. What is readily apparent is that Sadism of Consentual BDSM has three components that are apart of the act. Consenting Person, Moral Person and Healthy Person!

The distinctions of what is Consent, Moral and Healthy are often subjective. In a universal sense we can get some common understandings, but as one starts to go deeper the distinctions between different people will become greater and our choices will reflect these differences.

So for me, "Love" is incorporated within the three components of Consentual Sadism. Love I feel is an important foundation block within the Moral person. This love is not just of self, but a love of what one is doing. A moral person also doesn't harm what one loves, be that harm is towards the Bottom or one self or even the lifestyle. I believe that love is a foundation block to a "Heathly person" A person that can love themself and others is going to have a better mental state to engage in SM activities. They are not doing it to get or prove love... but are doing it because they "Love". Finally, consent dictates that one respects the power of choice that people have but also, it reflects that to respect is to love. This love is not the Romantic or deeply intimate. This love may not even be directed to the bottom.... but could be directed at the lifestyle or Play itself... Love of the Play!

So not only does love not interfere with it... But it enhances and is a very much apart of Sadism in the Context of Consenual BDSM.

just a few rambling thoughts on the topic!






cloudboy -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/11/2006 11:22:22 AM)


>Love I feel is an important foundation block within the Moral person. This love is not just of self, but a love of what one is doing.<

Here you make a valuable distinction that no one else has touched upon, namely "love is not just of self, but a love of what one is doing." When a DOM loves what they are doing, there is a real kinetic energy to it. Absent this, you may veer of into the "lifting weights" going through the motions category outlined by mercnbeth. I now agree that higher connected consciousness is truly foundational for an "in touch" DOM, and a SWITCH might not get this, as DOMMING for her might just be a role change, a different part on the stage instead of a fundemental expression of core self.

I like also how you characterize love as a type of enlighted, connected awarness of ones surroundings, self, and others. Its as if its a higher state of being, and such a thought is very useful.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/11/2006 11:31:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
I now agree that higher connected consciousness is truly foundational for an "in touch" DOM, and a SWITCH might not get this, as DOMMING for her might just be a role change, a different part on the stage instead of a fundemental expression of core self.

For many switches, it is not a changing of role, but simply having both expressions as part of themselves.

While I disagree that LOVE is a necessity to be moral, (love fails to stop immorality many times) I can agree that some sort of philia is necessary to be moral.
quote:


I like also how you characterize love as a type of enlighted, connected awarness of ones surroundings, self, and others. Its as if its a higher state of being, and such a thought is very useful.

I agree. This is why I posted yesterday:

For me love simply is a state of being.

*winks at Knight*





KnightofMists -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/11/2006 12:20:57 PM)

There is a difference between Moral Acts and a Moral Person.

A moral person can and does do immoral acts from time to time.

But, Immoral acts doesn't necessarliy make an person Immoral. If it does, then we are all Immoral!

I believe Love is a part of a Moral Person! not that it will neccessarily prevent Immoral acts.



ImpGrrl -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/11/2006 3:13:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
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?


I think it only has anything to do with the specific person you were talking to. To me it says that this specific person would be more likely to have a primary "partner" relationship with someone they submit to than one they dominated.

And that's all.

Some people feel this way. Some feel the opposite. Some feel nothing of the sort.

I can have a primary "partner" relationship with anyone I fall in love with. That person can be my d-type, my s-type, or neither (but generally not both - I've never switched d/s in the same relationship). There is no love differential for me in d vs in s.

I can play (top or bottom) with anyone I like enough - no d, s, or even relationship needed. I can play with my primary partner, any of my (hypothetical) secondaries, or a fuck buddy. That has nothing at all to do with love, for me.

A note on what Lucky A said - I"m *more* likely to be able to hurt those I love, because I know that it fulfills them on some level too.




Sensualips -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/11/2006 5:08:27 PM)

Padriag
quote:

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.


What he said.

quote:

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.


I have heard this theory expressed in various forms all my life. It is just that the word "men" was used instead of dominant and "women" instead of submissive. I don't think this is a gender issue and I also don't believe it is a universal truth for D/s either.

sothernyte:
quote:

if you are lookin for love in this lifestyle... i think it is wise to see One that longs for the monogamous style relationship.


I am not sure what you are saying here. Do you feel monogamy equates love? Do you believe that those that embrace a poly lifestyle are incapable of love? Or are you under the impression that poly relationships generally lack love?

Cloudboy:
quote:

a SWITCH might not get this, as DOMMING for her might just be a role change, a different part on the stage instead of a fundemental expression of core self.


I identify as a switch (when forced to classify) and I don't see bottoming or topping as performing or even a split personality type of thing. My core self or personality does not change based on my "role." My role is just how I express myself at a particular time, in a particular setting, w/in a particular relationship. Sometimes I consciously work at this, and other times it just naturally occurs.

quote:

when you experience love and D/S --- it changes your patterns.


I'd like to hear more on this. Patterns change because of love as a motivating factor?



IrishMist -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/11/2006 5:18:14 PM)

quote:

Well, it's not exactly traits that other look for when on the search for a Dom.


but why lol?

I would think that things like this would be important, at least to a point anyway. I would not want to be with a person who was unemotional, detatched, and invulnerable; and I would gander a guess that most would not want that either. I am not saying that LOVE HAS to be present, but basic human qualities,yes.



cloudboy -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/11/2006 10:19:15 PM)


>> quote:

when you experience love and D/S --- it changes your patterns.



I'd like to hear more on this. Patterns change because of love as a motivating factor? <<

No, patterns do not change because love is a motivating factor. Rather, the experience of love changes one. There is a revolutionary quality to it. There is a before, during, and after. The person one was, the person one becomes, and the person one became. Its a progression from A to B to C. At each point, the world and the way we process our experiences in it differs.



Padriag -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/12/2006 3:23:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

why is it always assumed that Masters/Dominants are not exposed, vulnerable, emotional and giving? Seriously, that is something that I would really like to have answered.

ORIGINAL: Duste

Well, it's not exactly traits that other look for when on the search for a Dom.

but why lol?

I would think that things like this would be important, at least to a point anyway. I would not want to be with a person who was unemotional, detatched, and invulnerable; and I would gander a guess that most would not want that either. I am not saying that LOVE HAS to be present, but basic human qualities,yes.

That's the trap of binary thinking, that things have to either / or. The kind of thinking that says if you are not unemotional and detached, then you must be emotional and exposed, but its fallicious thinking that doesn't leave room for a third option. Its people going to extremes, and extremes usually end up causing trouble. This same kind of thinking leads us to think that you cannot be a sadist and be loving, you cannot be a strict disciplinarian and still be affectionate, you cannot be firm yet also gentle. I watch parents make these mistakes with their children... either over indulging them or being too harsh on them. The trick is to find that third option, the middle ground.

For me that middle ground comes from learning to let go of some emotions that weaken me, of overcoming the fear of expressing other emotions, and learning to use self discipline in all things. I work daily to push resentment and bitterness out of my life... these are emotions of weakness, you cannot resent someone unless you in some way feel less than them, you cannot be bitter without being resentful. I've learned that anger has its place, its a natural emotion and it is not necessarily negative. Anger is justified at times and appropriate. Its when I let anger control me that it becomes a weakness, its when I let anger continue beyond when it was appropriate it becomes self destructive. I've learned I can be angry in a moment, and in another moment let it go. In this same way I can be strict and firm and enforce discipline in one moment, correcting and punishing as necessary... and in another moment be affectionate and loving... because I do not hold on to those emotions beyond their place. I am strong enough to both be open with my emotions and still be invulnerable... I can let you see how I feel, and yet you cannot hurt me because I choose not to allow you to. There's something wonderful in that... for a slave who knows that even should she disappoint me it will not harm me. I may correct her and discipline her... but I will not hate her, if I am angry it is for only a moment... and when the moment is passed the anger is as well. She doesn't have to fear me, though she knows I will not allow her to do as she pleases... because she knows she cannot hurt me, she cannot break my heart.

That's what it is to have a heart of steel... a heart that can laugh and love, being angry or sad, a heart that can weep or sing without fear because nothing in this world can break it and it revels in its own strength. It is a heart without fear.



dincubus -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/12/2006 3:48:13 AM)

In my case, as a dominant, love plays one hell of a major part of things. there is so much that would have never developed if the love had not been there. so i can honestly say that there is a huge portion of love that comes into the whole mix. if there is respect there is the potential for love. if there is love, there is an endless capacity for something new to blossom.



IrishMist -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/12/2006 6:26:19 AM)

I am not arguing that Masters/Dominants can not be...

I was asking why cloudboy made that distinction.

quote:

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....


and then questioning Duste's response to my off the wall question

quote:

Well, it's not exactly traits that other look for when on the search for a Dom



Padriag -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/12/2006 7:54:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sensualips

Padriag
quote:

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.


What he said.

quote:

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.


I have heard this theory expressed in various forms all my life. It is just that the word "men" was used instead of dominant and "women" instead of submissive. I don't think this is a gender issue and I also don't believe it is a universal truth for D/s either.

Men were traditionally taught in the past to control their emotions, but unfortunately that often became synonomous with repressing their emotions. Control and repression aren't the same thing... repressing emotions results in a lack of emotional expression, detachment, etc. Controling your emotions means being able to express and experience them fully, but controlling their effect on you and not letting them rule you. Its a form of self control and self discipline... which goes right back to the adage about mastering yourself before you can master anyone else. Or put more directly, I can love my slave and yet not let that love control me, it will not keep me from disciplining or punishing when that is needed. Most conceptions of dominance I've encountered have a very masculine element to them, I think its fair to say much of those concepts grew out of older traditions about masculinity and manhood, so its not surprising then that some of the same misconceptions (repression vs control) crept in as well.

Is it universally true that a dominant should be able to control their emotions, without repressing them. Yes. Is that universally true of all dominants, sadly no.



fastlane -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/12/2006 8:45:52 AM)

Dominats have feelings too .... LOL.....and love can be a very strong emotion that is shared between he and his sub/slave. A Dom can play with anyone, completely absent of emotion, just concentrating on the scene and immediate gratification for one or both parties, quenching the thirst, so to speak.
However, look how many D/s relationships are out there with love as the foundation for the collar and or ring.
I would think to be in love with my slave would not only bring out the most sadistic behavior I could muster, but would enhance whatever we were into together.
Why? Very simple. With love as part of the ingredient in the relationship and lifestyle, one can trust and dwell deeper into their inner voices of their head or soul without trepedation, because they are going there to completely be satisfied and to satisfy their partner without ramifications of offending or barriers of crossing the line.

Just my .02

Now, the chances of finding that person and falling in love are about 10 zillion to 1, while a person falling in lust are about 2 to 1, so I don't know why we're discussing it?

Lets talk about Lust!



EvilGeoff -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/12/2006 9:17:04 AM)

The topic kind of defines the boundaries of the discussion and my thougths.

"Love" _and_ D/s = Love and Dominance and submission.

In MY world, Dominance and submission can be 100% seperated from SM. You can have a D/s relationship and never a crop, flogger or spanking within it. And in that D/s relationship you betcha, Dominant can be very much in love with the submissive.

Topping and bottoming on the other hand can be pretty much 100% seperated from D/s as well. A bottom can be surrendering only as much control within a scene as it takes for the Top to do the scene. If the scene is limited to the bottoms negotiated checklist, who needs love in the equation?

I am Master of janey, I own her and I love her. And I play with her. Because I love her I might not play as hard with her as I would play with others. Why? Because I know she isn't a pain-slut. But I am slowly increasing the intensity of our play as she surrenders more herself to meeting _my_ needs as a sadist.

With those who I Top in a scene, fuckit, lets GO! If they want it hard I'll play hard. If they want pain, I will inflict it in spades! I don't love them but it sure gets me off when they wiggle and squeal and whimper. But if they don't want a lot of pain, then I don't have to play hard.

For me, in the SM realm love doesn't play much of a role. I'm a play-slut and I'll scene with darn near anyone after negotiating the scene. In the D/s realm, love DOES play a role in my relationship with janey. But if we add a service slave to the family love will not play a role initially. Friendship, respect, loyalty, compassion? Sure! But love? Maybe after time and the relationship grows into a loving one.

YIK,
- Geoff



KnightofMists -> RE: Love & D/S -- TOP v. BOTTOM (1/12/2006 9:30:14 AM)

mmmmmmmm seems like you "love" to Play. I thought you said love had nothing to do with it?



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.699707E-02