leadership527
Posts: 5026
Joined: 6/2/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: allthatjaz This topic has been inspired through a conversation with a friend. That conversation was about people in this lifestyle threatening to leave their relationship if the sub didn’t come up to shape. *chuckles* Well, I'm in the one-strike crowd so I guess I'll comment. For me (yes, me me me, not for you or anyone else), being my slave means total obedience. The moment she knowingly defies me, then the word "total" no longer applies. So I would then no longer refer to her as my slave. Within the context of our relationship, that's more of a dictionary adjustment than anything else. I mean seriously, there are a ton of ways for Carol to address a concern/issue/whatever with me that do not involve defiance. You know, something akin to, "Hey Master, I think you're being an idiot here. Have you thought about..." So I have no remorse about treating defiance as I do. It's also important to remember that this has nothing to do with how much I love her, etc. Our "love dynamic" would not be seriously harmed by perturbations in our authority dynamic. For me, it's mostly my engineer's brain calling a spade a spade. From a different direction entirely, we had that recent "who actually has the power?" thread wherein I learned that "the person who has the power is the one who is most ready to leave." This smacks of the cold war doctrine of mutually assured destruction and I choose to not think of my marriage as a cold war. quote:
Can a sub wholly trust her man if she sees him keeping one foot out of the door? In my opinion, an awful lot of folks on these boards toss around the statement "wholly trust" without a lot of thought. I think that statement typically appears more as a bit of romantic finery than a statement of fact... as graphically demonstrated in the "would you strip in the restaurant" thread and a whole host of other threads wherein boundaries are set on relationship. For ME (and not for anyone else), the placement of a boundary is pretty clear evidence that the sub in question does not trust the dominant in that area. For instance, Carol is monogamous to the core. Yet she does not limit me on whether or not I sleep with another woman, whether I command her to sleep with or perform sexually for another man, or whether I invite one or more additional people into our marriage. She trusts me to manage the situation, our marriage, and her so that if any or all of these events came to pass, then it would by definition be good for her... whether or not she can envision how that could possibly be right now. quote:
My ten cents worth: If a relationship is based purely on a D/s dynamic and not allowed to grow beyond that, if that D/s dynamic dwindles then there is little left but then there was never much there in the first place. Any relationship starts with roots. Those initial roots may be based around D/s and from those roots grows a firm stem. The stem then grows branches in many directions and those branches eventually blossom. When I see ‘relationships’ with a whole load of trust but ‘one foot out of the door’ I just see a stem that has no branches. I'm not sure I think that's fair. I have a key and necessary component in my relationship too. I need Carol to love me. If she stopped loving me, the foundation of my relationship would be done with no matter how many other things were wonderful. I see no difference between that and someone else saying, "I need an authority dynamic".
_____________________________
~Jeff I didn't so much "enslave" Carol as I did "enlove" her. - Me I want a joyous, loving, respectful relationship where the male is in charge and deserves to be. - DavanKael
|