Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 10:32:44 AM   
TNstepsout


Posts: 1558
Joined: 8/3/2005
Status: offline 		This is a spin off to the thread discussing whether love has any place in a M/s relationship. Some people are using the term love, and others the term in-love. So I was wondering if you feel there is a distinction between the two. I think there is a big difference in them and I wonder if that difference is part of what is causing the differences in opinions on that topic.

I think love is long lasting, enduring and is a true honest feeling of affection, deovotion and adoration of another person. It doesn't have to be romantic, it can be among very dear friends, family members etc... It's a bond that can stand the test of time and takes work to maintain.

In-love is something else. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I think it's a combination of passion, excitement, expectation, romance and love. I think in-love often contains a lot of unrealistic perceptions and doesn't hold up well to the stress and strain of life. It's fun but fleeting.

So what's your definition and how does that make a difference in how you answer the question as to whether "love" belongs in and M/s dynamic or not?

Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 10:50:24 AM   
MASTERRocker


Posts: 277
Joined: 9/19/2006
From: Kitchener-Waterloo, ON
Status: offline 		I love My dog, or horse - does not mean I am in love with them.
My relationships with My slaves are the same degree - I love them dearly; but can not be in love with them. IF that ever happens - then they will not be a slave any longer - but a Lover...
MASTER Rocker

(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 11:15:08 AM   
Frank01


Posts: 270
Joined: 9/7/2006
Status: offline 		Why do you have to love and adore someone to be in a relationship with them? Is there a rulebook out there I'm not aware of?

(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 11:24:14 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank01

Why do you have to love and adore someone to be in a relationship with them? Is there a rulebook out there I'm not aware of?


I am somewhat confused, I did not read her projecting anything on anyone else, she was giving her opinions and asking for others to state how they feel.

Her question was as follows:

quote:

So what's your definition and how does that make a difference in how you answer the question as to whether "love" belongs in and M/s dynamic or not?



It was not stating you have to do anything or feel something you do not want to

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Frank01)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 11:25:51 AM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

This is a spin off to the thread discussing whether love has any place in a M/s relationship. Some people are using the term love, and others the term in-love. So I was wondering if you feel there is a distinction between the two. I think there is a big difference in them and I wonder if that difference is part of what is causing the differences in opinions on that topic.

I think love is long lasting, enduring and is a true honest feeling of affection, deovotion and adoration of another person. It doesn't have to be romantic, it can be among very dear friends, family members etc... It's a bond that can stand the test of time and takes work to maintain.

In-love is something else. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I think it's a combination of passion, excitement, expectation, romance and love. I think in-love often contains a lot of unrealistic perceptions and doesn't hold up well to the stress and strain of life. It's fun but fleeting.

So what's your definition and how does that make a difference in how you answer the question as to whether "love" belongs in and M/s dynamic or not?


I agree... there is a distinction between the two.

One of my submissives was married.  I've spoken of her on other threads here before.  Her husband was dominant and aware of the relationship between she and I.  I met him and he and I were, if not friends, at least friendly acquaintances.
I loved her.  I was not in love with her nor she with me.  Setting that boundary up beforehand actually did a great deal in terms of enhancement of the relationship as it forced us to draw out expectations that were realistic and that did not interfere in her relationship with him.  Loving her rather than being in love with her is probably what made it easier...though not without difficulty...to help her at the beginning of her journey towards being a female dominant.

I've also spoken of the two submissives I was in love with.  As I stated on an earlier thread, it was not the "being - in - love" part that 'screwed' things up...there were other factors involved.

While I agree that being in love with someone does have a different feel and a whole different set of expectations, I think that it can hold up well to the stress and strain of life as long as there is communication and honesty among those involved along with a willingness to grow together, handle things together, focus on what unites them and embrace it while working on that which does not.  Perhaps...just perhaps... the key is something my grandparents had and which I honestly aspired to but admittedly, let my own interests and sense of self come first in a rushed manner rather than working at a steady and patient level:  my grandparents always felt that being in love was not so much a matter of 'him' or 'her'; rather, it was 'them' and the sense that God...for they very much believed in one...had put them together for a reason and that nothing they'd done in their life had shown them that the 'reason' had been dealt with and they could move on alone or with others.  And they lived it until my grandmother died at 96 and my grandfather a few yrs. later at 102...84 yrs. they were together.

Can you lay a D/s relationship over the top of being in love?  Yes.  Does it take more work than a normal relationship?  Probably, but I think it can be made easier if you approach it from this manner (understanding that these are my own thouights and this is being put out to consider, not as a "One True Way" seminar.  That is coming up in December...final dates and location to follow...~winks~).
Does "being-in-love" guarantee the screw - up of the D/s relationship or does the D/s relationship guarantee the screw - up of the "being - in - love"?  Yeah...if the partners are not totally aware of this possibility and figure out ways to maintain both and where the boundaries, no matter how slight or how invisible they are, lie.  For it is not fair to go to Master and say "I don't think you're really in love with me because you made me do this" when what he has done is well within the parameter of the D/s relationship negotiated between the two of them AND has nothing to do with the "in-love" relationship...he didn't use the fact that he knows the submissive is in love with him to coerce her into anything, etc., etc..  Nor is it fair for Master TO state "You're in love with me...you say you are...and you are my submissive:  those two things should make you want to do this for me" when what he wants is outside of the parameters of their D/s relationship.  And he is using the "in-love" card from one relationship with his partner to bolster his argument in his other relationship with his partner.
There are many other examples I could give...these two are just a sampling of how...in my mind...you could screw up both relationships.

(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 11:26:56 AM   
Frank01


Posts: 270
Joined: 9/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank01

Why do you have to love and adore someone to be in a relationship with them? Is there a rulebook out there I'm not aware of?


I am somewhat confused, I did not read her projecting anything on anyone else, she was giving her opinions and asking for others to state how they feel.

Her question was as follows:

quote:

So what's your definition and how does that make a difference in how you answer the question as to whether "love" belongs in and M/s dynamic or not?



It was not stating you have to do anything or feel something you do not want to


Her statements in another thread made it seem that it's a default setting to her. I was merely broaching the question of why that was. And what the motivations for THIS thread were.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 11:34:11 AM   
Frank01


Posts: 270
Joined: 9/7/2006
Status: offline 		CreativeDom wrote:
quote:

For it is not fair to go to Master and say "I don't think you're really in love with me because you made me do this" when what he has done is well within the parameter of the D/s relationship negotiated between the two of them AND has nothing to do with the "in-love" relationship...he didn't use the fact that he knows the submissive is in love with him to coerce her into anything, etc., etc..  Nor is it fair for Master TO state "You're in love with me...you say you are...and you are my submissive:  those two things should make you want to do this for me" when what he wants is outside of the parameters of their D/s relationship.  And he is using the "in-love" card from one relationship with his partner to bolster his argument in his other relationship with his partner.
There are many other examples I could give...these two are just a sampling of how...in my mind...you could screw up both relationships.


I gave an example of leverage in other thread. The above illustrates how this may work. But I think you look at this too much in egalitarian premises...... That it's not "fair" for a master to use his power and wiles to control a slave. While that may not work for some other couples-keep on mind that it is EXACTLY the dynamic that makes others happy.

And that just because you adhere to a POV, it's not going to be a default for a workable relationship with ALL.

(in reply to Frank01)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 11:51:20 AM   
charismagirrl


Posts: 297
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline 		When i think of the whole being IN love thing it's hard for me to put a finger on. It's deep and enduring, as someone said previously. It's that amazing feeling that you get when you see the one you're in love with, but even though i know a ton of words, i can't really fully describe it....it seems like submission to me, the two are almost the same in my mind and heart.Both as equally difficult for me to fully describe.

.
i do know fully when i fall out of love or am no longer in love with someone. I notice this when i've broken up with someone in the past and that feeling just isn't there. i still love them, in alot of ways but don't feel THAT anymore.

i am in a TPE relationship with my Daddy/Master and we are in love with eachother and love eachother. The more deeply i submit, the more in love with him i become and the more deeply i fall in love the more deeply i surrender....it's because he loves (and is IN love) me deeply that i can accept whatever he choses for me (even tho i don't always jump up and down for it all as it is, i do jump up and down because it pleases him)

Also, my Daddy/Master is trying to teach me that the love and the in love are not in the words or feelings but rather in the ACTIONS .

That being said, maybe sometimes the loving action is to do something that most ppl might look at as something one would never do to someone they're in love with...but maybe it is the most loving thing one could do. Kind of like when you do something for someone's own good...or the "I am only doing this because I love you" thing....and sometimes the greatest loving actions (to love one's self) are selfish ones...strictly because the Master wants them. (as a slave these actions are giving to me too because they fulfill my need to serve my Daddy)





(in reply to Frank01)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 12:02:55 PM   
agirl


Posts: 4530
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline 		I find it extremely difficult to define *love* at all.......but at a push being *in love* would probably be being *in lust*, or being in love with a fantasy that I've woven around someone.....That kind of heady attraction which either levels out over time to a more lasting kind of thing (often more by luck than judgement) or leaves you looking at someone that you don't really like at all.......lol


In the past, I've been told that I'm loved and not *felt* loved. How I feel and view what's being afforded me is more important. If I feel significant and respected I tend to be content in relationships of any kind, including offspring and wider family.

agirl








(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 12:11:42 PM   
raiken


Posts: 868
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank01

CreativeDom wrote:
quote:

For it is not fair to go to Master and say "I don't think you're really in love with me because you made me do this" when what he has done is well within the parameter of the D/s relationship negotiated between the two of them AND has nothing to do with the "in-love" relationship...he didn't use the fact that he knows the submissive is in love with him to coerce her into anything, etc., etc..  Nor is it fair for Master TO state "You're in love with me...you say you are...and you are my submissive:  those two things should make you want to do this for me" when what he wants is outside of the parameters of their D/s relationship.  And he is using the "in-love" card from one relationship with his partner to bolster his argument in his other relationship with his partner.
There are many other examples I could give...these two are just a sampling of how...in my mind...you could screw up both relationships.


I gave an example of leverage in other thread. The above illustrates how this may work. But I think you look at this too much in egalitarian premises...... That it's not "fair" for a master to use his power and wiles to control a slave. While that may not work for some other couples-keep on mind that it is EXACTLY the dynamic that makes others happy.

And that just because you adhere to a POV, it's not going to be a default for a workable relationship with ALL.

 
Frank, i have observed, that you also, hold to your POV and mercilessly defend it at almost every turn, even when someone else posts something different than your own.  
 
On the flip side of this, (ducking just in case-lol) Just as many Masters may feel it is not fair for a sub to use their wiles on the Master...(insert whatever personal thoughts come to mind here).  But, i have found that "wiles" are a part of everyones personal makeup to some extent, it is a part of human nature and to deny that part, is denying perhaps a valueable part of another person.
 
For me, using wiles can go both ways....regardless of rank, title or position within a relationship.  It depends on the people involved.  Some get off on this type of exchange of wit and wile, respect it for what it is, and find it healthy, to enjoy one another freely, for who they are and are becoming. While for others, it is a turn off and becomes filled with issues, ranging from insecurity in position, rank or title, which may lead to disrespect or distrust. This may or may not include "wile" to be containing elements of seduction, persuasion, manipulation, etc, which depending upon the intentions of the one "using their wile" could be viewed in either positive or negative light, depending on the outcome, understanding and exchange between the partners involved.
 
If i have a Master who believes that the only way he can Master me is through the use of his wiles...we will have an issue, for that is not the type of Master i would be inspired to serve.  For me, personally, one of my key words IS...inspiration.  Just a thought or three. *smile

(in reply to Frank01)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 12:23:25 PM   
Frank01


Posts: 270
Joined: 9/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: raiken

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank01

CreativeDom wrote:
quote:

For it is not fair to go to Master and say "I don't think you're really in love with me because you made me do this" when what he has done is well within the parameter of the D/s relationship negotiated between the two of them AND has nothing to do with the "in-love" relationship...he didn't use the fact that he knows the submissive is in love with him to coerce her into anything, etc., etc..  Nor is it fair for Master TO state "You're in love with me...you say you are...and you are my submissive:  those two things should make you want to do this for me" when what he wants is outside of the parameters of their D/s relationship.  And he is using the "in-love" card from one relationship with his partner to bolster his argument in his other relationship with his partner.
There are many other examples I could give...these two are just a sampling of how...in my mind...you could screw up both relationships.


I gave an example of leverage in other thread. The above illustrates how this may work. But I think you look at this too much in egalitarian premises...... That it's not "fair" for a master to use his power and wiles to control a slave. While that may not work for some other couples-keep on mind that it is EXACTLY the dynamic that makes others happy.

And that just because you adhere to a POV, it's not going to be a default for a workable relationship with ALL.

 
Frank, i have observed, that you also, hold to your POV and mercilessly defend it at almost every turn, even when someone else posts something different than your own.  
 
On the flip side of this, (ducking just in case-lol) Just as many Masters may feel it is not fair for a sub to use their wiles on the Master...(insert whatever personal thoughts come to mind here).  But, i have found that "wiles" are a part of everyones personal makeup to some extent, it is a part of human nature and to deny that part, is denying perhaps a valueable part of another person.
 
For me, using wiles can go both ways....regardless of rank, title or position within a relationship.  It depends on the people involved.  Some get off on this type of exchange of wit and wile, respect it for what it is, and find it healthy, to enjoy one another freely, for who they are and are becoming. While for others, it is a turn off and becomes filled with issues, ranging from insecurity in position, rank or title, which may lead to disrespect or distrust. This may or may not include "wile" to be containing elements of seduction, persuasion, manipulation, etc, which depending upon the intentions of the one "using their wile" could be viewed in either positive or negative light, depending on the outcome, understanding and exchange between the partners involved.
 
If i have a Master who believes that the only way he can Master me is through the use of his wiles...we will have an issue, for that is not the type of Master i would be inspired to serve.  For me, personally, one of my key words IS...inspiration.  Just a thought or three. *smile


I just enjoy being a devils advocate. The reactions are interesting. What I find to be so curious,is how often standard societal expectations are brought into a supposedly alternative lifestyle. That so much seems to be taken for granted.

I expect a certain degree of fencing about in any relationship- but le'ts be honest here-many slaves enjoy the feeling that they cannot manipulate or outwit thier Tops. And that being put in thier places when they "test" gives them a feeling of security.

(in reply to raiken)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 12:44:24 PM   
sweetnurseBBW


Posts: 2464
Joined: 1/26/2006
From: North Carolina
Status: offline 		Everyone acts like being in love changes things. I have been in this lifestyle 12 years have been inlove with Mistress's/Master's and I never felt like I could manipulate them.  Why not fall inlove with someone you share something so closely with? Every situation is different and it may not apply. Being in love doesn't mean it time to manipulate. If thats the kind of people that these people end up with then thats poor choosing on their part. Plenty of couples here are inlove and all it does is make things better.

_____________________________

Sir Pain's pain slut

(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 12:48:15 PM   
hypnoticblue


Posts: 130
Joined: 9/20/2006
Status: offline 		There is only one type of "love" that I honestly believe truly exsists anymore.  That is the love of a mother.  I love my children more than life itself and would lay my life down for either of them a million times.  Everything I do in life, I do for them. 

I don't think that there really is a distinction between love and in love personally.  Love is an all or nothing game.  Either you do, or you don't.  There isn't a middle ground. 

But again, this coming from an extremely bitter person who has been burned in the name of "love" a few too many times.

(in reply to sweetnurseBBW)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 12:51:48 PM   
raiken


Posts: 868
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank01

I just enjoy being a devils advocate.

LOL i understand this part, as do i. *grin

The reactions are interesting.

Yes, we humans are very interesting and diverse eh? i love diversity, it broadens my own perspectives.

What I find to be so curious,is how often standard societal expectations are brought into a supposedly alternative lifestyle. That so much seems to be taken for granted.

You may wish to keep in mind that many folks were raised in society with all the injections, deceptions, and what ever else, that make us who we are at present.  Each person is at their own level of growth and awareness coming into this area of new dynamics, relationships, etc.  Folks are growing and learning and discovering within themselves, what they need, desire, wish to experience, in order to find exactly what fulfills them and has lead them here in the first place.

I expect a certain degree of fencing about in any relationship-

Yes, it is good to expect that this type of interaction may occur between humans in any type of exchange or connection, in various situations.

but le'ts be honest here-many slaves enjoy the feeling that they cannot manipulate or outwit thier Tops. And that being put in thier places when they "test" gives them a feeling of security.


Yes, for myself, this is true, and i also feel that way.  That is why i only join or connect as a slave, with one who is that much stronger, intelligent and wiser than myself.  BUT, i do keep this thought in a balanced perspective.  i am careful not to go to the extreme and be so ridgid as to not allow for natural human nature, personality or character in another person.  If being witty and wile (seductive, persuaive or even manipulative) is a (healthy) part of who a person is, and they have honorable intent, i will enjoy that type of exchange and that part of a person, for it is always a fun challenge, etc.  If i find that their intentions are less than honorable or respectful, honest and forth coming, i will quickly distance myself from that individual.  Each character trait has both a negative and a positive connotation, it is the intentions of each individual that directs the outcome.


(in reply to Frank01)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 1:03:33 PM   
Frank01


Posts: 270
Joined: 9/7/2006
Status: offline 		Here's the deal. I like to interject my knowledge of things that are different from this-and vanilla society. So that others may see that they DON'T neccesarily have to follow a 'thought pattern" of a certain variety to be in a "healthy relationship."  And that there are MANY alernative and equally viable patterns that are useful.

As far as intent? That is changable in individuals as well. People often change, they want different things. Those changes often make continuing a relationship unviable-with those individuals.

But not neccesasrly with others who MATCH those new intents and expectations.

(in reply to raiken)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 1:22:43 PM   
MasterFireMaam


Posts: 5587
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Charleston, WV
Status: offline 		I actually wrote a blog entry about this on my myspace page. Here's a repost about the difference for me and why I'm not looking for romantic love.

If you asked my slave girl anne if she was loved and cherished, she'd say, emphatically, "YES!" even though we are not sexual partners (she's het) nor do we have romance. Cherishing and truly loving someone, for me, is totally different from romantic love. But, I understand that my idea of romantic love might not be the everyday idea and is probably different than yours.

First, you have to understand that every person has the Prostitute archetype in which we will sell ourselves to ensure some kind of basic security. For women, this usually means exchanging our bodies for financial security. Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if we are aware of what we are doing and are doing it out of a willing desire. The problem arises when we do it because we feel a duty to participate in the exchange (marital right to sex, for example) or because of a desperate need to keep the relationship at any cost in order to feel secure in ourselves (a husband buys his wife expensive gifts with the unspoken expectation that he get sex (which equals love for many men)). Most of the time, we exchange pieces of ourselves because we are looking for someone to prove to us, by giving us love, that we are worthy of love. Most of us, deep inside, really doubt that we are worthy. Looking for outward love and approval to tell us that we are worthy of love will always lead to disappointment; at some point the other person will do something that puts a dent in that assurance and we begin to self doubt againand our whole reason for being in the relationship is then undermined. This negative exchange of love is what I have experience and witnessed romantic love to be, time and time again. It doesn't mean that's really what it is, that's only MY perception of it. So, the first point is that, often, romantic love is based on the desire for someone to tell us we are worthy of being loved rather than us knowing from within that we are worthy.

Second, if you go to dictionary.com and look up romantic, you will find that about half the definitions relate to idealism:

1. fanciful; impractical; unrealistic: romantic ideas.
2. imbued with or dominated by idealism, a desire for adventure, chivalry, etc.
3. characterized by a preoccupation with love or by the idealizing of love or one's beloved.

Romantic love involves the idealization of the relationship and the other person. I've heard time and time again someone say, "Master is perfect," or "Mistress is always right." I roll my eyes when I hear these. While we might really, fervently desire these statements to be true, they simply are not. The slave expects themselves to not be perfect, as we see in the desire they express in being punished and corrected; they get to have the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, the slave expects the Master to be perfect. This actually pisses me off; it's really not fair of the slave to think such as it puts the Master on a pedestal from which he or she WILL fall. The slave is setting us up for failure and since the slave is often seeing the success of the Master and the romanticized relationship as an outward sign of their worthiness, they are sabotaging themselves as well (we all have the Saboteur archetype, too, but that's a different conversation). We do this in vanilla relationships, too. How many times have we heard someone proclaim that their newly-found "one" is perfect or a perfect match? So, the second point is that romantic love idealized the relationship is such a way that it is doomed to fail.

Third, and this is where the biggest difference between myself and others is most likely to come into play, I am a poly person. I do not feel that there is one person out there who could meet all my needs. I honor those who are monogamous in their thinking, but view them as willfully accepting the things they must give up in order to maintain the relationship with a single person. In my opinion, this is actually, again, setting up the relationship for failure and the reason why we have so much adultery in our society. For whatever reasons, when an integral part breaks down in a mono relationship (such as sex or play or the Ds dynamic), we find that a basic need isn't being met. This leads us to search for it elsewhere, often behind the backs of our sole (not soul) mate. I think this is wrong; I would much rather have my mate come to me and say that they have a need thats not being met and ask if they could look elsewhere for it if I cannot meet it. I won't deny that I would be hurt, perhaps terribly hurt, but I'd rather it be done honestly than behind my back. My third point is then, all too often, we agree to give up too much in order to have the romanticized relationship with a sole person. So much so that when a small thing fails (he forgot my birthday), it's the proverbial straw and the relationship then can fall apart. We must be sure we are not selling ourselves too much in order to cling to the idea of "mating for life". I fully admit that we really can mate for life, given proper communication and good choices. I just happen to think the scenario is exceedingly rare, if you really study everyday relationships.

I much prefer to have a relationship based on unconditional love. I accept the flaws in those who are in a relationship with me and I desire that they do the same. I feel these relationships can be much more common, if we were really honest with ourselves about the whole thing. Be aware, however, that having unconditional love doesn't mean having an unconditional relationship (to quote an acquaintance). At the very least, we each need to have boundaries in place to avoid being put in, or seeking out, a negative relationship. So, even though I might love someone, I can acknowledge that how they act or where they are in their headspace at the moment has a negative or harmful effect on me and remove myself from the situation or even the relationship.

I'm betting, but I could be wrong, that what most desire in their quest for romantic love is one in which the partner is sweet and kind and lavishes attention and such on them. These activities, to me, are not romantic love; these are expressions of appreciation for having someone special in my life. In other words, they are expressions of enjoyment and gratitude. I want and need to give and receive these things, too. They are given in order to reaffirm the person is of value, but should not be viewed as THE sign that the receiver is worthy of love. First and foremost, we should have love, and compassion, for ourselves.

So, for me, this means that while I will (and do) love those in my life, it will not be the happy-go-lucky, wistfully beautiful ideal love of romance. It will be what I see as real love in which we accept each other as we are. It is a truly joyful thing to just sit in someone's energy and be content, not because they love you, but because you love them.


Master Fire


< Message edited by MasterFireMaam -- 9/27/2006 2:01:40 PM >

_____________________________

The power of who we are can be intoxicating. The power of who we could be is humbling.
-----
Ms Relationship Books
-----
BDSM How-To Books

(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 1:50:52 PM   
Frank01


Posts: 270
Joined: 9/7/2006
Status: offline 		Master Fire wrote:
quote:




So, the first point is that, often, romantic love is based on the desire for someone to tell us we are worthy of being loved rather than us knowing from within that we are worthy.

 
 This is the main reason I refuse to base a relationship on romance. That one must be "Loved" to be worthy. To me, love is the acceptance of another person.  All intimacy asises from this. It's as simple as that-they bring positive things to you-which you return-and you also realize that they aren't perfect, and that SOME allowances have to be made.
 
 You see, I have found that romatic love can often be the basis of some very nuerotic and insecure thought patterns.  That one can worry so much about having an intagible-they they forget thier earned values. Love in the romantic form, I can do without-acceptance and a feeling of worth-I cannot. Nor would I expect any under my hand to feel any different.



(in reply to MasterFireMaam)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 3:20:10 PM   
Amaros


Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline 		Love is a balanced mix of affection and understanding, a sort of special empathy - in love is a form of temporary madness, an emotional roller-coaster that will take you from the giddiest heights to the most profound depths on the slightest of pretexts, so violently that if prolonged, it will leave you a smoking, burned out shell.

On the other hand, it's arguably better to burn out, than it is to fade away.

Personally, I don't sneer at either, although it's been fashionable to do so in recent years.

< Message edited by Amaros -- 9/27/2006 3:28:36 PM >

(in reply to Frank01)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/27/2006 5:45:20 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank01

CreativeDom wrote:
quote:

For it is not fair to go to Master and say "I don't think you're really in love with me because you made me do this" when what he has done is well within the parameter of the D/s relationship negotiated between the two of them AND has nothing to do with the "in-love" relationship...he didn't use the fact that he knows the submissive is in love with him to coerce her into anything, etc., etc..  Nor is it fair for Master TO state "You're in love with me...you say you are...and you are my submissive:  those two things should make you want to do this for me" when what he wants is outside of the parameters of their D/s relationship.  And he is using the "in-love" card from one relationship with his partner to bolster his argument in his other relationship with his partner.
There are many other examples I could give...these two are just a sampling of how...in my mind...you could screw up both relationships.


I gave an example of leverage in other thread. The above illustrates how this may work. But I think you look at this too much in egalitarian premises...... That it's not "fair" for a master to use his power and wiles to control a slave. While that may not work for some other couples-keep on mind that it is EXACTLY the dynamic that makes others happy.

And that just because you adhere to a POV, it's not going to be a default for a workable relationship with ALL.


You are right Frank; I adhere to a certain P.O.V. and it doesn't work for all.  That is why I stated in parentheses - - quite clearly - - that there were my thoughts and NOT meant to reflect "One True Way". 

That being said, I will say this:  I believe in honesty and communication.  To me, any time you obtain leverage over someone by exploiting their feelings in a dishonest manner, then you are not worthy of the trust placed in you.  A blatant example of such dishonesty in the context in which we are speaking:  Submissive is in love with me.  I am not in love with her.  I tell her, in just the way she wants to hear it, "If you do this specific act for me, it would go a long way towards really helping me believe that you are in love with me...and that it might just be O.K. for me to fall in love with you" all the while knowing within myself that I have no intention of doing so.  The fact that she is in love with me gives me leverage.  Whether I use that honestly...if such a thing can even be done...or dishonestly, such as the very overt example given above, makes the difference - - to me - - as to whether or not I would be following through on what most feel that D/s should have as two of its' cornerstones (as it were):  honesty and trust.

I do follow my own way, you're right.  And that way does not apply to everybody.  Nor am I a goody-two-shoes when it comes to "use" of a submissive.  But there are things I won't do simply as a human being anymore.  Why would I bring them to my D/s relationships?

(in reply to Frank01)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love - 9/28/2006 5:03:47 AM   
TNstepsout


Posts: 1558
Joined: 8/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:


I much prefer to have a relationship based on unconditional love. I accept the flaws in those who are in a relationship with me and I desire that they do the same. I feel these relationships can be much more common, if we were really honest with ourselves about the whole thing. Be aware, however, that having unconditional love doesn't mean having an unconditional relationship (to quote an acquaintance). At the very least, we each need to have boundaries in place to avoid being put in, or seeking out, a negative relationship. So, even though I might love someone, I can acknowledge that how they act or where they are in their headspace at the moment has a negative or harmful effect on me and remove myself from the situation or even the relationship.


I agree completely with this. I find it easy to love people, I even find it easy to love them unconditionally. What I do not do unconditionally is allow power or control over me or my life. After 23 years of marriage I can even say I still love my ex-husband, and probably always will, but I don't miss him. That might seem strange to some, but although we had a wonderful rapport and cared deeply for one another, his weaknesses and flaws were ruining my life. They are two different things to me which is why I say that a person CAN love someone without giving up anything.

Now if the object of your love requires you to give away your power in order to prove you love them, or to get love back, that's a different matter. Personally I wouldn't engage in a relationship of that sort. It's blackmail. Love should be real, freely given and genuine. But again, to me, that's not what love is. That is a twisted, dysfunctional model of love.

Thanks all, nice answers. I still disagree with the original poster on the other thread. I can't imagine being in such a close, intimate, long-term relationship with someone and NOT loving them. But to each his own.


(in reply to MasterFireMaam)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Another Spin off thread-Love vs. In Love Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094