CreativeDominant
Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SlyStone It's interesting that there are two opposing views here. One is that I drank of the koolaid and it is my reality that I worship my master and to me he is a God. This one is completely foreign to me but I respect it if you truly believe it. The other is that D/s is a mixture of fantasy and reality. I would like to hear more from this point of view because it interests me. What place and how much place should fantasy and illusion have in a D/s relationship? My view is that no man is a God, and no man could ever live up to the expectations of a God, and that I like my BDSM steeped in reality. Room for all of us I hope. Scotty better beam me down a universal translator and oh yeah send Mccoy's hot nurse to ummmmmmmm operate it. Kirk out Seems to me you are equating BDSM with D/s. But as has been discussed here many times, if you view them as two separate entities...D/s as being dominance and submission and BDSM as being BondageDisciplineSadismMasochism...then you can begin to relate to one as the "relationship" and one as a "twisted" version of expressing that relationship and note the difference. All reality that involves dealing with other humans on anything other than a basic level is going to involve something other than just reacting to each other in the most basic way. When I order my lunch from the counter person at MacDonalds, I am not going to be interacting in anything but the most basic way..."I would like something to eat, please" "Yes Sir, will that be all?...." When you begin having relationships with other people, the nuances of acquaintanceship, friendship, best friends, lovers, long-term partners, etc. begin to come in depending on your relationship with that person. This includes courtesy, terms of address, etc. I am not going to call my pastor "my dear friend"...he is my pastor and as such, is addressed always as "Reverend". Because I do know him in a closer manner than the other pastor in the church, he is addressed as "Reverend Phil" rather than "Reverend Tarman". A subtle thing but there it is. I call my daughters "Daddy's girl" and "Daddy's baby". Neither is a girl any longer and neither is a baby...but it makes them feel a certain way just as it makes me feel a certain way when they call me "Papi" rather than "provider of 1/2 of my DNA make-up". In D/s, another reason for using titles or honorifics, which I have not seen mentioned yet, is for subtle and unspoken enforcement of 'place within the relationship' by both the submissive and the dominant.
|