AnnaOfAramis
Posts: 523
Joined: 7/30/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
Why is it so many people who answered "false" do not explain their position? The question at hand has merit, and I feel cannot be adequately dimissed in one word. I understand the instant response. My first response was "Pppffft, no!" but consider further. The principle of least interest states that the party who loves more has less power. They no longer hold the ace, the "I could always leave" card. I'm not, IN ANY WAY advocating the use of relational aggression as a healthy dynamic between people, but having the ability to use (without actually using) that abusive card is an increase of power. Isn't that what D/s is about? Increasing the power of one party while lowering the power of another? Hello Sir, I also think it is false. In fact I think it is essential in a D/s or M/s relationship that it is balanced. I liken it to a yin yang symbol. Rather than seeing it as a power imbalance, I see it as a power exchange. It has to be equal to work. If one has more power than the other can give in submission, the relationship will fail. If one needs to give more than they receive in dominance, the relationship will fail. The dominance has to be given in direct proportion to the submission given. Need and love will vary in their expression. The way a dominant needs is not the same as the way the submissive needs. The sub might need his authority, his care, his affection, his pleasure etc etc. The dominant might need her service, her devotion, her love, etc. But he would not be able to fulfill his needs without her, and she would not be able to fulfill her needs without him. Similarly the way a dominant expresses love will be different than the way a submissive expresses it, but that is not to say that one loves more than the other. However, I have seen some relationships where there is no love; I imagine there are also those in which one loves and the other does not... how long that is sustainable though, I have no idea. It might be possible, but I certainly don't think it is necessary or preferable, quite the contrary. Hope this explanation helps Sir, anna
|