RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship

RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (Full Version)

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

Message

JanahX -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/8/2012 2:47:03 PM)
I agree - I really like your posts. And I dont like anything. - wink quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: AthenaSurrenders As one half of a husband/wife M/s partnership, thank you for being a shining example of the purest, truest, deepest form of power exchange which I, as a married woman, can never hope to attain. Clearly since I signed that marriage certificate I can never give myself fully and without reservation and my husband and I are doomed to forever paddle at the shallow end of the pool. Thank goodness we have those wiser and more committed than us to show us how it is done. Athena, I think we need to keep you. This was great.

littlewonder -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/8/2012 3:16:48 PM)
In the past I was in M/s relationships where there was no love, not even friendship. They worked at that time for me because I was so fucked up after my husband's death that I had no interest in love or friendships. I just wanted to be able to forget myself in service to someone. I didn't want to feel anything at all for anyone. I was numb. So like I said, it worked for me then. But it's been many years since my husband's death and I did my time grieving and therapy, etc....and now the only thing I wanted was love and a long term committed relationship...bdsm or not, M/s or not, kink or not. I just wanted someone to love who loved me back and we loved each other as a We. Thankfully I have that now.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/8/2012 4:47:00 PM)
Honestly? Just because YOU find it unneccessary and some others find it unnecessary as well, doesn't make it fact. It means that it is what works for you. Loving and being loved is an essential component to a human's needs in life, so honestly if you have "slaves" where you don't love you and you don't love them, they are likely getting that love somewhere else. If you honestly believe you are so knowledgeable that you can speak for what the rest of us expect, want or need out of our relationships, you are so full of shit, it would make sense that people tell you that you won't find what you are looking for. At the end of the day, if you have successful, long term relationships that work that way for you, great. No one really cares. But to actually state the rest of us who want (and get) it all, including love are playing in the kiddie pool compared to you, makes you look like a complete asshat, and that more than anything will keep you alone.

DesFIP -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/8/2012 7:06:31 PM)
One question, OP. How long have you been seeking someone? And have you not found that your insistence on not loving her has caused you problems? Okay, two questions. Why are you afraid to love? The fact that you are ruling it out says you have a reason. The only people I have known who rule it out are those who have been hurt before and are afraid of being hurt again so they protect themselves from it at all costs. Personally, living your life because of fear doesn't come across as dominant to me.

Greta75 -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/8/2012 10:00:58 PM)
I don't believe in a d/s long term relationship without love. I need to love a man to be able to give. And I need that man to love me, so I know he will keep me safe and never go over-board.

RaspberryLemon -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/9/2012 2:10:10 AM)
I agree that people should be respectful of others' way of doing things and understand that "their" way is not the ONLY way. However I will say that this: quote: ORIGINAL: werebeastie It is my opinion that a slave that will give itself over to its Master completely, no limits, no reservations is taking a much deeper leap of faith in its lifestyle choice than is the spouse that fancies a bit of kinky play. One might say it is a matter of degree but this is kiddie pool wading versus deep sea diving and the pressure down there are dangerous. is not necessarily true to form and can be interpreted as an attack on others' ways of doing things. Many master/slave couples who have a romantic or spouse type bond with each other are doing exactly as you say--the slave is giving themselves to their Master completely and becoming property, and they are not just doing "a bit of kinky play." The type of deep, no-reservations commitment and ownership you speak of is not mutually exclusive with romantic love. For some, romantic love enhances it or even is completely necessary for it to happen. Some people don't find it necessary, others find it essential. Heck, some people even find that including romantic love into these types of relationships is a setback. None of these ways are wrong, none of them are "better" or more worthwhile. It's whatever works for the people involved. For me, romantic love is entirely necessary and essential for the owner/property bond I share with my Master. I would not have given myself so completely to someone who I did not share those mutual feelings with. It just wouldn't be something I would want and it wouldn't feel right to me. It would not fulfill me. But that's me. For some others, it's different. That's them, and their experiences are just as valid as mine. So I guess my point is that I agree that people should not tell you that your version of doing things is less worthwhile and you are completely right to be offended by that. At the same time, I'd like to point out that it is offensive to people like me (those who have given themselves completely and totally to their Master, and also experience a romantic bond with them) for you to say that you view their relationships as not as "deep" as your way and see it as "kiddie pool wading." It's condescending and presumptuous. Different things fulfill different people. If you want people to accept that for you, you might want to start by accepting that for others.

ARIES83 -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/9/2012 5:16:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: werebeastie Love is not necessary to have a functional Master/slave relationship. I am often confronted, usually by female subs in a D/s relationship with their husband or boyfriend (or who want to be), about my stand on love being unnecessary to the successful M/s relationship. They tell me my paradigm will alienate me and keep worthwhile slaves from wanting to commit to me. Fact and experience kill those dire predictions. Yet that behavior does raise some questions about the purveyors of such propaganda and their motives. BDSM is a rather large umbrella under which many find shelter. So one must begin to organize and sectionalize and group accordingly. I am afraid that it is here that we begin to fall prey to our more base natures. Our kinks are good kinks and our way of doing them is the only correct way. Begins to sound like organized religion doesn't it? Because the next step in that cycle is that since our way is the bestest rightest way than it is THE way everyone should do it. So you begin to have people squabbling about the various approaches to finding happiness in life. Today I am going to address the attack on my way of living life. At no time will I say that the way those that attacked me is the wrong way of doing it, I will say it is their way of doing it and if it works for them that is wonderful but it does not make them correct and it certainly does not make them of a higher quality. Within my relationships as a Master with regard to his slaves I do personally hope to develop strong bonds of love and certainly trust. Yet this love will not be the romantic entanglements of lovers or spouses. Think of how you take a pet. You pick one out of numberless options knowing very little about it quite honestly. You honor this pet by giving it your trust, your care, your attention. You train this pet to be the pet you desire it to be and to act as you would have it. As this pet grows and finds its place within your life your attachment grows. It is hoped your relationship will be symbiotic and synergistic. You will come to know and depend upon one another, your trust will deepen; you will care for your pet even more and may even come to love and cherish it deeply. If you are a good Master this love will be returned many times over with loyalty and trust as well. I have had this relationship with many of my pets human and otherwise. Never made me want to marry one of them. So if the idea of being compared to other chattel is offensive than you are not the quality slave I want. When I accept a slave's offer to give herself to me it is with the understanding that she is mine completely without reservation to do with as I will. It is my opinion that a slave that will give itself over to its Master completely, no limits, no reservations is taking a much deeper leap of faith in its lifestyle choice than is the spouse that fancies a bit of kinky play. One might say it is a matter of degree but this is kiddie pool wading versus deep sea diving and the pressure down there are dangerous. Now allow me to address the issue of quality. I was told no worthwhile slaves would be interested in my version of M/s. I find that terribly offensive. What sort of judgmental nonsense is that? To my way of thinking if this were an organized religion those slaves that give themselves to me knowing there is no romantic entanglement, knowing that we exist as Owner and property would be the clergy while husband/wife D/s M/s teams would be followers of our truth. Your. Post. Is. To. Long. I don't understand the question? -ARIES

DesFIP -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/9/2012 1:14:22 PM)
werebeastie: You are also assuming that all d/s and m/s relationships include kink. They don't. The two are not equivalent. I do what he says and kink is very rare here. Honestly I can't remember when the last time was.

Firebirdseeking -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/10/2012 5:49:53 PM)
well, let me say first that I am not a slave, so what do I know? Let me say second, that I met and married my dominant here, and to my way of thinking, we have a very successful marriage and D/s relationship. Let me say third - and I will underscore "what do I know" - that there are healthy and unhealthy relationships of all kinds, including M/s and D/s. If you want to have a relationship that does not include feelings, that is your prerogative. It is also my prerogative to think that is not particularly healthy. But what do I know. Im just a mental health professional, in a D/s marriage. Which is obviously not your kink.

RemoteUser -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/10/2012 8:31:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: werebeastie Yet that behavior does raise some questions about the purveyors of such propaganda and their motives. This was where I hit the brakes. Questioning motives instead of having a straightforward conversation is never going to end well, even with the best of intentions. "Why did they do this?" without consulting they is asking for assumptions that lead to fallacies (assuming the opinion offered by 'they' even matters). You went on to voice opinions and define love based on your own personal view, couched in generalistic terms. Big flag here: if you haven't read what people do on these boards to generalistic terms, read more before you post, or have a thick skin. You will git bit as the perception is that you wish to project your mores over others, and that rankles everyone. If you want to cry out the same cry that rings through the hills hundreds of times a year go ahead. The air is free (except in Australia and Tasmania, thank you, carbon tax), have a shout. Yes, the concept of non-loving M/s is out there. Just don't confuse concepts with people, mmmk? HUGE difference. PS The more you shove under an umbrella, the less organized it is. You don't believe me, go play in the rain with ten friends and have them get under with you one at a time. This "community" doesn't need organization, it has structure down to the bone of its intent. If I had to pick one topic to make bigger than the rest it would be education. Don't let someone swing a flogger like a baseball bat, and so on, because yes, you can bet someone out there is dumb enough to. That's only my opinion, though. Take it as ye like.

Dresproperty -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/10/2012 8:38:12 PM)
I know love is not necessary for every M/s relationship but for me it is necessary. I prefer a 24/7 TPE and for me that level of dynamic needs love, trust, honesty, loyalty and respect. I cant see that happening in a dynamic with no emotional attachment. YMMV.

fetisheden -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/11/2012 1:49:04 AM)
*

Kana -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/11/2012 2:04:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dresproperty I know love is not necessary for every M/s relationship but for me it is necessary. I prefer a 24/7 TPE and for me that level of dynamic needs love, trust, honesty, loyalty and respect. I cant see that happening in a dynamic with no emotional attachment. YMMV. My experience was the exact opposite. The only real way I can function in a bound relationship w/o emotional attachment (Note-I ain't talking bout play, but relationships) is within the boundaries of a strict TPE where I am the owner and she is property. The structure, and strictures, made it easier for me to detach.

pyschosubmission -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/11/2012 3:44:07 AM)
Please forgive the forthcoming stream of ignorance here but... Surely "D/s" is a dynamic that can be applied to theoretically any relationship, whereas "kink" is purely sexual. Consequently with kink, no love is required, merely attraction. However with D/s it is required, no? Obviously love is such a broad term, encompassing many different connections, I could probably do with Greek here.. So while D/s might not require Eros (passionate/romantic love) would it not then be Philia (affection/friendship love) or even Storge (sort of a natural love, an example being for offspring or someone under your care) Of course this is all just my admittedly very limited understanding, and I could quite possibly have completely missed the point (as I so often do)

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/11/2012 4:10:09 AM)
No, love is not necessary for a functional M/s or D/s relationship. Indeed, they exist on all levels of society out side of kink and sex. Since most people can be stripped down and labeled according to their most basic role. A great example of this is boss/subordinate. You don't have to love your boss, but you do have to do what he/she says, else you will lose your job. The boss takes on the dominant role (qualified or not) and the subordinate takes on the sub role (comfortable or not). This is the way of the world. However, when you are talking deep and abiding relationships of an intimate nature, whether they be M/s, D/s, or entirely vanilla, love plays an important and integral part. Being in love (and I agree with LadyP, there is a difference) is icing on the cake and pure bliss. I love my boy, and am in love with my dom. To me love implies deep feelings that are essential for me to give a fuck about a person to the extent I belong to them or they belong to me. Like most people, love and deep friendship are things I need in my intimate relationships. To claim your relationships are in any way better b/c you don't have "feelings" for your property is pure and utter nonsense (JMO). And I will go a step further and say that dominants who are incapable of having deep feelings are piss poor dominants that s-types should avoid like the very plague. (In general, PEOPLE incapable of deep feelings are poor relationship material, but dress that up however you wish.) Again, that is my opinion. You are of course free to pursue relationships in any way you see fit. That you manage to find females with such low self esteem that they buy into your brand of bullshit does not surprise me. I can only hope they see this thread before they make any commitment to you.

pyschosubmission -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/11/2012 4:22:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt A great example of this is boss/subordinate. You don't have to love your boss, but you do have to do what he/she says, else you will lose your job. The boss takes on the dominant role (qualified or not) and the subordinate takes on the sub role (comfortable or not). This is the way of the world. That's a brilliant point, I had not thought of that. Got carried away with peace & love, obviously been listening to too much of The Beatles recently

GreedyTop -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/11/2012 4:25:10 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4IYaJCkinA&feature=related

pyschosubmission -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/11/2012 4:33:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4IYaJCkinA&feature=related ^ This post makes for a happy pyschosubmission :)

crazyml -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/11/2012 4:34:19 AM)
To the OP... This is how adults can disagree. quote: ORIGINAL: Kana quote: ORIGINAL: Dresproperty I know love is not necessary for every M/s relationship but for me it is necessary. I prefer a 24/7 TPE and for me that level of dynamic needs love, trust, honesty, loyalty and respect. I cant see that happening in a dynamic with no emotional attachment. YMMV. My experience was the exact opposite. The only real way I can function in a bound relationship w/o emotional attachment (Note-I ain't talking bout play, but relationships) is within the boundaries of a strict TPE where I am the owner and she is property. The structure, and strictures, made it easier for me to detach. I've had relationships that were purely about the D/s and where love didn't even come into the equation. Now, in most of those respect and affection played a role, but I've had a couple where even those weren't on the table. Personally - I'm looking for love, mutual respect, and a shit load of D/s, and sure you can claim that my preferences are invalid, but if you do, I'll just assume you're a cunt. You can state that you have a different perspective, different needs and wants, and that while my preferences are not yours, they're not invalid. And if you do, I'll assume that you're not a cunt.

kalikshama -> RE: Love is not necessary M/s relationship (7/11/2012 6:08:13 AM)
quote: Obviously love is such a broad term, encompassing many different connections, I could probably do with Greek here.. So while D/s might not require Eros (passionate/romantic love) would it not then be Philia (affection/friendship love) or even Storge (sort of a natural love, an example being for offspring or someone under your care) Thanks! I generally develop philia for regular play partners: At the next level, friendships of pleasure are based on pure delight in the company of other people. People who drink together or share a hobby may have such friendships. However, these friends may also part—in this case if they no longer enjoy the shared activity, or can no longer participate in it together. Perhaps the OP should reflect on this: For Aristotle, in order to feel the highest form of philia for another, one must feel it for oneself; the object of philia is, after all, "another oneself"

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875