|
yourMissTress -> RE: If all the protocols ceased to exist.... (11/30/2006 8:58:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee
Thank you for asking and not just judging, MissTress. It is my fault for choosing an analogy to illustrate an inponderable.
As above so below - as within so without. The rituals without intent are hollow. The intent without expression is mute.
The short answer is - Yes and No. I am saying that without expression, what's the point of calling it D/s or even a relationship? Why not call it Fred? (With apologies to all the Freds out there.)
An artist without a medium is still an artist but where's the art?
MoE's original question is really unanswerable because the two cannot be separated, not even conceptually, as we can see from some replies here. A person says the protocols don't have any real significance then describes a protocol they have which they claim isn't one. If there is no word or gesture accompanying the act then that is still protocol, a ritual of wordless obedience. Any act which recognises the existence of a D/s dynamic IS protocol, however casual it may appear. Every act is infused with meaning.
Q: when does an act become a ritual? A: When one says so.
Z.
Thank you for your explanation, very well expressed.
My sub and I do not use high protocol in our everyday lives. In fact, we only use it as a part of a scene or during a lifestyle event that would require it. We do however act towards and react to one another in a certain manner or style which, as Archer so eloquently explained, is protocol regardless of the D/s nature of our relationship.
She is submissive by nature as I am dominant by nature. as our relationship grows and evolves so does the way in which we relate to one another but our innate desires and tendencies remain constant.
So, my answer to the O/P's question is this: We would still be who we are, and simply find new ways to express ourselves.
|
|
|
|
