|
FieryOpal -> RE: Some thoughts on long term relationships within BDSM (10/27/2014 5:14:44 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: YouName
For Fiery Opal
Hello there!
I'm wondering then what you, no matter your position find appealing in a permanent state of either domination or submission with one (or a select number) of people??
For example, you've had a long life. Haven't there been times when you've met or seen someone you would have liked to submit to sexually or mentally or just simply professionally in one way or an other or if you are a submissive found someone you think you should dominate or lead in a relationship of any sort?
I'll compare this to things in general.
When you take advice from someone you take advice in what you are lacking and give advice where they are lacking.
Even if my idea of "catching up" isn't true, shouldn't there always be someone above and below you on the sexual, personal and professional plane, no matter where you are or who you are?
I guess an other concept worth exploring is the difference between a Sub&Dominant relationship and a Slave&Master one. In the later, perhaps the goal of each person is not to lead or follow but to continuously put in place and in a way degrade and without switching it may simply glue itself firm. This doesn't appeal to me and I find it a bit inhuman but I'm not dissing people who're "into it".
For example...And this may sound weird (I may be the only one?) but if I had a loving, insecure sub into chastity (which I've never had nor am very interested in) I would probably use a reward system in the opposite way that most seem to do.
Instead of working to "lock" him or her up more and more I would reward them with more and more freedom in that sense the more obedient or made better and better life decisions or pleased me in a better way. But most people here (fuck it, ALL people I've talked to or seen on the web) seem to be into the opposite thing.
Basically the path into equality instead of the path away from it as a guiding principle of D&S relations. I guess that's what this topic is about and as I mentioned, in the end such a relationship would be "doomed" to either turn into a well oiled vanilla one with various degrees of kink or play or it would simply end as is natural for things when they reach their climax.
Instead of breaking someone to liberate someone. But perhaps you have to be a switch...or someone not "naturally" either dominant or submissive to be into this type of thing?
Btw, I should tell you that whatever I post is my own take on things, whether it's based in empirical observation, anecdotal in nature or JMPO. No two Dominants are alike.
I don't read BDSM manuals, never have, don't care to be influenced by them (not into S&M, and there's no way to avoid this topic), only a few classic works of literature when I was younger that I found to be dreadfully insipid. [:'(]
I should also mention that there are a few of us on these Message Boards who are more into the D/s and either don't practice BDSM much or only incorporate light elements of B&D into our play.
Many of us do not have humiliation & punishment dynamics. I don't know how it is for you over in Sweden, but I find that Europeans tend to have a cut & dried or high-protocol concept of M/s-Master/slave dynamics which entails TPE 24/7 and doesn't leave room for what many of us fondly refer to as "funishment." This is much different than punishment, where discipline and correction are called for as needed in a serious non-play capacity. Discipline is not intended to be pleasurable or sought after.
You asked about my orientation status. I am a straight, monogamous Domme who practices a modified form of FLR-Female Led Relationship, greatly influenced by the marital D/s I came from. I do not take on multiple male subs, have never had a non-sexual service sub, and I do not consider my sub partner to be my slave. My husband and I had started out as a kink-friendly vanilla couple, and were experimental so we weren't following D/s protocol (other than the use of the honorific "Mistress"). It just turned out that I preferred to Top and he preferred to bottom. It wasn't until a few years that we settled into a bedroom D/s dynamic. This was not fulfilling to me, however, and outside the bedroom we had typical vanilla power struggles, which I don't ever want to go through again. I took charge of our partnership and made most of the decisions, under the guise of an *egalitarian* marriage, which is a nice concept but utterly impractical. There will almost always be one partner who feels s/he is getting short-changed or (non-consensually) being marginalized. I see very little integrity in vanilla LTRs, in vanilla relationships in general, not even with vanilla friendships due to their tit-for-tat self-serving natures. It wasn't until we moved our D/s out of the bedroom where my husband officially acknowledged my authority, that we restored integrity back into our marriage, for about the last 5-6 years of what had spanned 18 years (not including 4 years where we had been bf/gf).
IMO, this is the fallacy with equality, that we are all the same. No we aren't, and we never shall be. Individual uniqueness flies in the face of this concept. In terms of Equal Rights between genders, despite popular or prevailing opinion, this was always intended to be about each and every one of us having the right to make personal choices. No matter where those choices may lead us. (In its most pragmatic application, ground zero would be equal pay for equal work, and for equal opportunities which would necessitate this paradigm shift.) For purposes of this analogy, core feminist beliefs were not supposed to be about men and women becoming the *same*. For obvious reasons, we are not the same anatomically, nor wired the same way, and we should abide by and honor Mother Nature's wisdom of design.
As for the rest of what you are positing, you are taking non-consensual vanilla precepts of leadership and dominance where our choices are limited by external circumstances and applying them to a mutually consensual arrangement between willing parties. This is comparing apples with oranges, and it can't be done without starting from the wrong premises and ending up with the wrong conclusions and results.[sm=cactus.gif]
|
|
|
|
