The Lover and the Beloved (Full Version)

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



Message

candystripper -> The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 1:55:06 AM)

In all love relationships of a sexual nature that i have experienced or observed, it seems there is always a beloved and a lover.  As long as the beloved is committed and loving, this seems to disturb no one.
 
It seems to me, in a D/s relationship, the Dom must be the beloved.  It is His joy i'd seek; it is His happiness i'd try to enhance; it is His authority i'd respect.
 
To me, the submissive seems naturally to be the lover.  Always pursuing a new routine, ritual, or other means to bring Him joy or peace or happiness. 
 
What do Y/you think?
 
candystripper



MsMacComb -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 2:07:25 AM)

I kind of disagree. I cherish my sub cuckold husband and all my subfem girlfriends. They mean so much to me on so many unique and individual levels that it is I that spoil them, it is I that take care of most of their needs as it is I that so deeply appreciates the gift of submission they have offered to me. Perhaps I am different in that regard, maybe its maternal or what have you but I am sure they all feel very much loved and beloved (as well do I). [:)]



FloridaISIS -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 2:08:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper

In all love relationships of a sexual nature that i have experienced or observed, it seems there is always a beloved and a lover.  As long as the beloved is committed and loving, this seems to disturb no one.
 
It seems to me, in a D/s relationship, the Dom must be the beloved.  It is His joy i'd seek; it is His happiness i'd try to enhance; it is His authority i'd respect.
 
To me, the submissive seems naturally to be the lover.  Always pursuing a new routine, ritual, or other means to bring Him joy or peace or happiness. 
 
What do Y/you think?
 
candystripper


In essence I would have to agree with you, but I'd also like to add a thought of My own.

I have before called  a sub of mine, my beloved, my treasured one. In my eyes he is just that. A gift to be treasured, my beloved slave.

He has give me heart, mind, body, and soul, sacrificed, given freely of himself all for my pleasure. In my eyes how could he not be my beloved?

I know there are some who will not be in agreement with me, and that's what makes this lifestyle so beautiful. We all have our own interpretations of it.

To the one I collar for life, yes, he will be My beloved, actually thinking about it now, that is the tag I will give My permanently collared one, for with the collar comes the ring, and he will from that day on be my one and only beloved.

Just my thoughts, thank you for starting this thread.

Peace and love,
Isis



ExistentialSteel -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 2:17:31 AM)

It is a valid point, but not necessarily always the case. There could be equal or slightly tilted desire/love one way or another and the relationship is strong. In a D/s relationship, I find that I am in control and able to use this to make her obey, beg or do what I want in a way that strengthens the D/s dynamic, but this doesn't mean that I don't love/need or whatever the term as much as the person being controlled.

I also think a lot of it is just biological. Ask 20 year olds and 40 year olds the same question and you may get different responses. Once women hit their mid-thirties, they are much in need of a consistent man (or whatever the orientation) and will do much to keep him. Men at that age find women plentiful and that fact alone gives them the upper hand. If a man is displeased he simply moves on and possibly that is always in the minds of both. Nice question in any case.



darkinshadows -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 3:07:13 AM)

Hello Candy.  I have to say - I have always seen the reverse.
The dominant personality is the Lover, the controller.  The submissive personality is the beloved, cared for - nurtured.
 
But then, I read alot of Rumi....
 

Peace and Rapture
quote:




A Lover asked His beloved

"Do you love yourself more than me?"

 

The beloved replied

"I have died to myself and I live for You.

I have disappeared from myself and my attributes.

I am present only for You.

I have forgotten all my learnings but from knowing You,

I have become a scholar.

I have lost all my strength but from Your power,

I am able.

 

If I love myself, I love You.

If I love You, I love myself."



agirl -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 3:22:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper

In all love relationships of a sexual nature that i have experienced or observed, it seems there is always a beloved and a lover.  As long as the beloved is committed and loving, this seems to disturb no one.
 
It seems to me, in a D/s relationship, the Dom must be the beloved.  It is His joy i'd seek; it is His happiness i'd try to enhance; it is His authority i'd respect.
 
To me, the submissive seems naturally to be the lover.  Always pursuing a new routine, ritual, or other means to bring Him joy or peace or happiness. 
 
What do Y/you think?
 
candystripper


I can't say that I'm *always* looking to find ways, routines etc to bring him joy, peace or happiness.....I rely on the fact that he's perfectly able to see to that himself.....I don't see it as my job to do that and I rather doubt he does, either. If he'd like circumstances a certain way , he just makes it happen a certain way. I like this arrangement.

I do respect his authority , it'd make a mockery of being his slave if I didn't. It's the whole point of my relationship.

I don't think in terms of lover and beloved...I suppose I think more in terms of responsibility...... I have my place in the relationship , he has his, they are so different that  those terms don't seem to apply.

Regards, agirl









meatcleaver -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 4:05:33 AM)

Relationships based on one partner adoring the other even if the other partner loves the other person for what they are is always unhealthy and probably doomed to failure. There has to be a realistic foundation in any relationship and not romantic wishful thinking. The adorer is probably always going to be brought crashing back into reality. If one side feels they don't have to contribute to the relationship, human nature will take over and they will probably just take advantage of the situation. This is one of the reasons I have often questioned the nature of D/s. It seems to me there is a lot of rationalising of behaviour in D/s that people would not normally stand for while wanting to hold onto bourgeois moral values. The circle can't be squared in my eyes so I don't take part in it. Give me a relationship based on equals with a good helping of S&M and I'm happy.



spankingglo -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 4:12:27 AM)

hear-hear to that meatcleaver...in my humble opinion/experience the adored/adoring hasn't worked as it usually takes a certain level of blindness to your partner's faults to truly adore.  True love to me is "your such a f---kwit and I love you".  smile... I want someone who is awake to all of me...my quirks, craziness, bad hair days, good hair days, sexiness.  Someone who values my gentle intelligence as much as my smartassed nature.  In short someone who actually sees me.

I just also have to add that there is a deeply romantic part of me that is terribly moved by the Rumi poem...but he was speaking of a relationship to god and not one mere mortal to another...still if we were all to aspire to that level of loving we might all be a lot more satisfied.



agirl -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 4:43:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Relationships based on one partner adoring the other even if the other partner loves the other person for what they are is always unhealthy and probably doomed to failure. There has to be a realistic foundation in any relationship and not romantic wishful thinking. The adorer is probably always going to be brought crashing back into reality. If one side feels they don't have to contribute to the relationship, human nature will take over and they will probably just take advantage of the situation. This is one of the reasons I have often questioned the nature of D/s. It seems to me there is a lot of rationalising of behaviour in D/s that people would not normally stand for while wanting to hold onto bourgeois moral values. The circle can't be squared in my eyes so I don't take part in it. Give me a relationship based on equals with a good helping of S&M and I'm happy.


I wouldn't go as far as saying *always* doomed to failure. There's always going to be that exception...lol.

I don't have romantic nature ( in the generally accepted use of the word) ..and would probably regard * bringing Him joy, peace and happiness* as a bit too much responsibility.

I hope I'm pleasing, of course, there'd be little point for him to be here otherwise, but it isn't my aim or my responsibility.

I can't identify with people that have this type of drive, but I can understand it.

agirl








Chaingang -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 4:53:18 AM)

Meatcleaver:

I don't think equality is necessary to a relationship - in fact many argue that there is a dominance hierarchy at work within most primate species.

What I do think is necessary is some kind of reciprocity or mutual exploitation. Everyone has to get back again at least part of what they give to a relationship or it will get out of balance very quickly. There has to be something that motivates everyone in the relationship to stick with it.



seekerofwisdom -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 4:59:20 AM)

I've always been the beloved one, at least by the quality doms I know. When I was the adorer, it was easy to overlook relationship problems that I should never have tolerated. That being said, I tend to agree that a submissive partner (and I do mean partner) is often looking for new ways to please, just as the dominant partner is. That's the nature of the exchange, or at least that's the way I'm wired. 



philosophy -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 5:18:50 AM)

in France they have a saying.....in love there is always one who kisses and one who offers the cheek to be kissed.



spankmepink11 -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 5:40:48 AM)

I would hope to be both....lover...and beloved .Just as, my Partner will also be both Lover and Beloved.



TNstepsout -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 5:46:51 AM)

I agree with those who say there should be an equal level of Lover and Beloved on both sides. I see relationships that work best are those in which both halves equally adore the other and seek to always show the other how much they love/adore them. In that way there is a constant cycle of loving and giving back more than you get.

I don't see a D/s relationship as being any different in this regard. Those that work (at least from what I've seen) still have this dynamic at their core. What is confusing is the term "equal". In the D/s partnership both parties have equal VALUE even if they don't have equal authority. Those are two very different concepts. I can't imagine any relationship working in which one party regards the other as being less valuable as a human being than him/herself.



thetammyjo -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 5:53:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper

In all love relationships of a sexual nature that i have experienced or observed, it seems there is always a beloved and a lover. As long as the beloved is committed and loving, this seems to disturb no one.

It seems to me, in a D/s relationship, the Dom must be the beloved. It is His joy i'd seek; it is His happiness i'd try to enhance; it is His authority i'd respect.

To me, the submissive seems naturally to be the lover. Always pursuing a new routine, ritual, or other means to bring Him joy or peace or happiness.

What do Y/you think?

candystripper


I have to be honest that when I see "lover" and "beloved" I think of the Greek words most often translated like this and my views are completely colored by my historical training.

The "erastes" or "lover" was the more powerful person, usually an adult male or someone in authority by virtue of age, rank, money, things of this nature. They are the one in control, the one making the plans.

The "eromenos" or "beloved" was the less powerful person in those same ways.

I use the terms beloved and lover this way in my own life... I am the "erastes" and Fox is my "eromenos" and sometimes I use the Greek (which I had to explain to him).

I know, I know, I'm a little freak.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 6:09:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper
To me, the submissive seems naturally to be the lover.  Always pursuing a new routine, ritual, or other means to bring Him joy or peace or happiness. 

What do Y/you think?

candystripper

I think in all of the love-based relationships I've seen work long term, everyone involved considers themselves both the beloved and the loved.



genvieve -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/25/2006 11:56:28 AM)

Simply put, i do not believe that any relationship, D/s or otherwise can exist without some modicum of love.  And if the love is not equally reciprocated, i do not believe the relationship may last.
 
i adore my Dominant, and i am certain that He adores me.  Or at least He'd better.  ~snorts and ducks out of His view~



pinkee -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/29/2006 5:23:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

Hello Candy.  I have to say - I have always seen the reverse.
The dominant personality is the Lover, the controller.  The submissive personality is the beloved, cared for - nurtured.
 
But then, I read alot of Rumi....
 

Peace and Rapture
quote:




A Lover asked His beloved

"Do you love yourself more than me?"

 

The beloved replied

"I have died to myself and I live for You.

I have disappeared from myself and my attributes.

I am present only for You.

I have forgotten all my learnings but from knowing You,

I have become a scholar.

I have lost all my strength but from Your power,

I am able.

 

If I love myself, I love You.

If I love You, I love myself."



Very thought provoking, da.  i shall ponder a bit more.
 
pinkee



feastie -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/29/2006 6:14:30 PM)

For one to be Beloved and the other to be Lover, would imply that one loves and receives no love, one receives but offers no love.  A dismal thought at best.



MoonGoddessIsis -> RE: The Lover and the Beloved (5/29/2006 6:20:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

Hello Candy.  I have to say - I have always seen the reverse.
The dominant personality is the Lover, the controller.  The submissive personality is the beloved, cared for - nurtured.
 
But then, I read alot of Rumi....
 

Peace and Rapture
quote:




A Lover asked His beloved

"Do you love yourself more than me?"

 

The beloved replied

"I have died to myself and I live for You.

I have disappeared from myself and my attributes.

I am present only for You.

I have forgotten all my learnings but from knowing You,

I have become a scholar.

I have lost all my strength but from Your power,

I am able.

 

If I love myself, I love You.

If I love You, I love myself."



What a beautiful sentiment.
Lady Moon



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125