|
CaringandReal -> RE: What Does "Keeper" Mean to You? (12/7/2010 6:05:01 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: porcelaine
quote:
ORIGINAL: CaringandReal
I did not wish to hijack that other thread for what is clearly a side tangent. I am rather old-school (but not paticularly Old Guard :p) and the term "keeper" isn't one I've used before.
I'm keeping the tone of this message light, but I am curious to know what keeper means to others in a D&S context, particularly those who actively and seriously use the term.
Greetings CaringandReal,
My personal usage of Keeper has always been in place but was typically restricted to private communication and something I didn't feel comfortable expressing openly. In the past I have indicated that I see definite distinctions in the roles and energy that may exist between myself and my partner that is identified through the style of address in place. In my relations the Keeper is the composite of many things that isn't wholly restricted to M/s but generally leans more towards an O/p situation that may include other roles in tandem that are manifested accordance to His preferences.
It resonates in a different fashion and isn't a term that I can affix to someone at random. Rather the individual embodies the spirit and energy referenced and interacts with me in a capacity that corresponds to Keeper which typically has a balance of soft and hard that displays itself differently than my dynamics that are purely Master/slave focused. In short, as His kept I bring multiple facets of my person into the relationship that may be unwelcome/unwanted in other situations. Its appearance in my responses is indicative of where I am in my path and the appropriate balance I need for fulfillment. I don't believe any answer is necessarily right or wrong, but merely what is true for the party in question.
Namaste,
~porcelaine
Ah, the person I quoted answerd me. Thanks for responding. I was hoping you would. :) You're not the only person I've seen using this term in bdsm discussionland, a good number do. But it's still newish to me and I was wondering what connotations it held for those who actively apply it to themselves or their SO. Many of the responses so far, while fascinating in their own ways (and educational--at least to me) are from people who, admittedly, do not use the term in the dominance/submission relationship sense. So I appreciate your contribution.
Is O/p owner property? I've not seen it acronymized this way very much, maybe once or twice and both times quite recently. If it's Owner/property, which would make a lot more sense in the context than "starter of thread," then I have another question. You said, in defining keeper, "...that isn't wholly restricted to M/s but generally leans more towards an O/p situation." I believe I know what M/s is, master-slave. How is M/s different from O/p? What distinctions do you or others that you know draw betweent the two types of relationships? To my casual eye, they look like the same thing, and I don't make any distinctions. Things change though. Once upon a time I never made a distinction between "submissive and slave" when referring to myself, although my former owner did most anally insist (smile) that I never, ever use "submissive" as a noun. Now I do make that distinction (between slave and submissive...person), but I don't know if I do so because "everybody does it" or because it now seems real to me. Hmm, food for thought, but I'll go consume that meal in private. I'm wandering off topic again.... and in my own thread, too. :/
I don't fully understand your third paragraph, not through any lack clarity on your part but becuase I suspect I lack the background/experience to make these sorts of fine distinctions. Are you saying that keeper/kept relationships (K/k?) have a different emotional atmosphere for you than M/s and maybe even O/p? Is that what you meant by "a balance of hard and soft?" Or that you have more freedom in being kept (returns to the zoo again) like a tiger in a cage is free to slash out or even dangerously romp with the person who comes in to feed it, whereas a submissive tiger, perhaps muzzled and chained to a post until it learns better behavior, would not dare to perform such things, or, due to its nature, ever want to do such things? A romping tiger is still kept, still imprisoned, still at the zoo for another's purpose and goals and cannot change those larger circumstances, but it does have more freedom inside its cage than one that isn't allowed such expressions. (I'm fully aware this is rather a pathetic analogy--free free to substitute your own!)
Understood about right/wrong. I'm not one who likes to go that particular route much. I'm just trying to get a broader understanding of an intriguing term much in the way I discover good movies to watch, by asking others what they think. :)
|
|
|
|
