RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right?

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

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 11:11:06 AM

BOUNTYHUNTER

Posts: 9259
Joined: 2/5/2004
Status: offline

Correct, what does love have to do with it?Nothing at all..BH

_____________________________

US going to hell in a hand basket/

(in reply to SirKenin)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 11:30:42 AM

juliaoceania

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER

Correct, what does love have to do with it?Nothing at all..BH

Well for you it may have nothing to do with it, but in my dynamic it certainly does... it depends on the people and the power exchange... it can have everything to do with it. I can tell you since I found the "love" place with my Daddy, it certainly has made his domination of me a lot more complete from my end of the flogger,... but your experience is yours and mine is mine.

_____________________________

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 BOUNTYHUNTER)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 12:46:44 PM

CreativeDominant

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER

Correct, what does love have to do with it?Nothing at all..BH

Well for you it may have nothing to do with it, but in my dynamic it certainly does... it depends on the people and the power exchange... it can have everything to do with it. I can tell you since I found the "love" place with my Daddy, it certainly has made his domination of me a lot more complete from my end of the flogger,... but your experience is yours and mine is mine.

I shouldn't speak for BH but IMO, you contradicted yourself.

Yes, in your dynamic now, the love makes the submission to your "Daddy" that much more worthwhile and well-rounded and deeper and more complete...but you also stated that in your initial submission to him, romantic love was NOT there (unless I read your post before this wrong). There were strong emotions present but not "relationship-partner to partner long-term" love.

The initial question was, can domination take place without emotion? While it is MOO that nothing other than extremely casual D/s within a play atmosphere can take place without emotion of some sort, that emotion does not have to be love. So, the statement that love has nothing to do with it is correct. Depending on your viewpoint, it can. Many of us look for it to eventually play a part in the D/s we engage in. But it does not initially have to have a place for D/s to occur, unless a person ties their submission or their dominance to the experiencing of love only for it to occur.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 1:22:40 PM

agirl

Posts: 4530
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER

Correct, what does love have to do with it?Nothing at all..BH

Well for you it may have nothing to do with it, but in my dynamic it certainly does... it depends on the people and the power exchange... it can have everything to do with it. I can tell you since I found the "love" place with my Daddy, it certainly has made his domination of me a lot more complete from my end of the flogger,... but your experience is yours and mine is mine.

But it doesn't HAVE to have anything to do with it nor is it needed for there to be domination. I was *dominated* by respect for a greater length of time. I am enormously attached NOW, emotionally, but it wasn't the case for years.

Taking my personal situation out of the question...domination does not NEED emotional attachment to occur.

agirl

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 1:38:37 PM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

Maybe some folks are missing the point I was making, I believe that this is a Cart/ horse thing.
I don't see how any ethicly practiced D/s relationship could happen where the relationship didn't eventuate in an emotional connection of some sort.
It may not be nessisary to begin the D/s relationship but as the relationship continues I doubt if it can last very long at all without some emotional attachment developing.

I have avoided the term "Love" because it is a poorly defined word in the english language.

(in reply to agirl)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 1:39:58 PM

BlindUnknown

Posts: 66
Joined: 1/8/2007
Status: offline

Hmm...maybe "domination" needs to be defined here...are we talking action/activities? Or the state of dominance?

If the former, than, i suppose theoretically it could be done. i would never be able to.

If the latter...i'll stick with "How can you be fully dominated without surrendering emotionally"

_____________________________

Remember...the Dominant has power -in- the relationship, the sub has power -over- it.
Kioku shta ka?
"If Light and Darkness are eternal, than surely Nothings must be the same!"

(in reply to agirl)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 1:50:14 PM

BlkTallFullfig

Posts: 5585
Joined: 6/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirDiscipliner69
Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right?
Ross

No domination does not need emotional attachment, but I think they call it work in those cases, and people usually submit because there is money to be made in behaving like the boss wants you to.

M

_____________________________

a.k.a. SexyBossyBBW
""Touching was, and still is, and will always be, the true revolution" Nikki Giovanni

(in reply to SirDiscipliner69)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 1:51:34 PM

michaelOfGeorgia

Posts: 4253
Status: offline

quote:

Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right?

the way some people express themselves you would think this is the case.

_____________________________

Are we having fun, yet?

(in reply to SirDiscipliner69)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 3:28:26 PM

Reflectivesoul

Posts: 1777
Joined: 4/25/2006
Status: offline

ok, time for my two cents....

Depending on how we, as individuals, look at this question there are a multitude of answers.... ( yeah I know, just like me to point out the obvious lol ) With that in mind I started looking at the different ways this question could be looked at and at the different depths it can weighed.

Emotionally, we ( most ) are hoping in the long term to find the ever ellusive "one" so from this angle we would hope that any interaction between ourselves and our partners ( long term here ) would have an emotional basis. For those that have found their partners ( congrats and lucky you lol ) what *I* would think is part of the bond there is the emotional basis because for any and all good relationships ( friendships etc ) Trust is a fundamental aspect of the foundation in that relationship and trust is an emotional response to actions from other people.

Physically, to Dominante someone it excites you physically and mentally so thus in and of itsself would suggest that there is already an emotional tie to the act of Dominating, otherwise people wouldnt seek out individuals to Dominate. Even in casual play the excitement is still present, the rush a Dominant feels and thus as a feeling it illicits emotion.

This is where I started into the road of the overly used "love" debate... if emotional attachment has to mean that you are in love with the partner you play with then I would say that for you as an individual you place the emotional aspect right along side of the Domination aspect. For those who do not place "love" in the same reguards as emotional attachment then I would say that no you dont require the emotonal attachment to be able to have a play partner. To play devils advocate, I would assume ( and yes this means I quite possibly could be making an ass, but ah well such is life lol ) that in order to have a D/s, M/s ( insert relationship term here ) then there would for long term require some sort of emotional attachment because otherwise why would it continue beyond anything but play, but as stated before even play illicits some sort of emotional response that a Dominant is attached to and likes to feel otherwise they wouldnt seek submissives.... to me it kinda has the same feel to it as to ask " do you have to be in love in order to have a sexual relationship"? Some will say yes, some will say no and neither is wrong and neither is right, it boils down to what as individuals they want, need, and feel.

Its like an onion, it has layers... ( ok so I liked that usage in Shrek lol )

_____________________________

ooooo..I bet THATS gonna leave a mark!!!!

Equal opportunity pisser on-er ... heh..

Gimme some crayons, I want color and I want it now DAMNIT!

(in reply to michaelOfGeorgia)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 3:48:16 PM

bandit25

Posts: 3029
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline

Does submission need emotion attached to be submission? I don't think either NEED emotion attached. One can be dominant or submissive without emotion. I'm not sure how that dynamic would work, tho. I don't think it needs love necessarily, but as Crazy C points out, I would worry about someone wanting to be my dominant without some sort of emotional connection.

(in reply to Reflectivesoul)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 8:22:31 PM

juliaoceania

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

quote:

shouldn't speak for BH but IMO, you contradicted yourself.

Yes, in your dynamic now, the love makes the submission to your "Daddy" that much more worthwhile and well-rounded and deeper and more complete...but you also stated that in your initial submission to him, romantic love was NOT there (unless I read your post before this wrong). There were strong emotions present but not "relationship-partner to partner long-term" love.

The initial question was, can domination take place without emotion? While it is MOO that nothing other than extremely casual D/s within a play atmosphere can take place without emotion of some sort, that emotion does not have to be love. So, the statement that love has nothing to do with it is correct. Depending on your viewpoint, it can. Many of us look for it to eventually play a part in the D/s we engage in. But it does not initially have to have a place for D/s to occur, unless a person ties their submission or their dominance to the experiencing of love only for it to occur

I see no contradiction. I believe there are different levels of submission. I do not submit everything at first, perhaps I am unique in this, but I see no contradiction in saying that when I first submitted to my Daddy I was not in love with him, but since then I am. The deeper the emotion, the deeper the submission.

I am not one to tell other people what they experience, I said several times that other people have different experiences.. Personally, without emotional connection I cannot submit, to me without a connection there is no power exchange. I think that this is the difference between bottoming and submitting (note I said to ME. I have no clue how other people feel because I am not them).. Clear up your confusion at the suppose contradiction?

_____________________________

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 CreativeDominant)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 8:28:32 PM

juliaoceania

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER

Correct, what does love have to do with it?Nothing at all..BH

Well for you it may have nothing to do with it, but in my dynamic it certainly does... it depends on the people and the power exchange... it can have everything to do with it. I can tell you since I found the "love" place with my Daddy, it certainly has made his domination of me a lot more complete from my end of the flogger,... but your experience is yours and mine is mine.

But it doesn't HAVE to have anything to do with it nor is it needed for there to be domination. I was *dominated* by respect for a greater length of time. I am enormously attached NOW, emotionally, but it wasn't the case for years.

Taking my personal situation out of the question...domination does not NEED emotional attachment to occur.

agirl

I want to make sure I am understood, I was speaking only for myself, and my comments to BH was that it sounded like he was universalizing his statement... yes some of us DO need to feel emotions for the person we are dominating or submitting to. He was stating that it had nothing to do with love, I was making the point that for some of us it does.

_____________________________

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 agirl)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 9:13:48 PM

Reflectivesoul

Posts: 1777
Joined: 4/25/2006
Status: offline

julia,
I saw the condradiction much as CD did, where it is... when you said in the beginning of your relationship you DID submit without the emotional ties but in turn you stated that you can not submit without the emotions being involved as well... I think what you may have been trying to come across as is... that in the beginning for *you* personally it was bottoming and thus different to *you* than a complete submission... therefor the contradiction doesnt exist to *you* because there is a difference between bottoming and subbing.... and for *you* personally there needs to be an emotional connection in order for *you* to be able to fully submit to someone else....not just bottom for play time or whatever?

_____________________________

ooooo..I bet THATS gonna leave a mark!!!!

Equal opportunity pisser on-er ... heh..

Gimme some crayons, I want color and I want it now DAMNIT!

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 9:31:44 PM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

Just to throw a monkey wrench into the debate I'll submit the example of Master Jim and slave marsha fairly well know educators on the M/s relationship dynamic.

Certainly they are atypical, but the are the exampple of the emotional attachment not having to be a romantic love, since Master Jim identifies as a gay man and slave marsha as a lesbian and both contend their M/s relationship is not based on romantic love, and if longevity is to count for something the relationship between them is going strong after 10 years of service.

But they will readily admit there is a large emotional attachment for them both, but it is not a romantic love for sure.

(in reply to Reflectivesoul)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 9:56:34 PM

Reflectivesoul

Posts: 1777
Joined: 4/25/2006
Status: offline

Archer...

I just KNEW someone was going to bring up this point lol... this is why I listed Trust as a fundamental instead of "love" ... You raise a great point too in that even though a romantic love is not present in that relationship there is still an emotional bond, thus which I figure still lands them in the ever growing pot of long term relationships being based on some kind of emotional foundation.

For me personally love ( romantic kind here.. ) doesnt have to be the motivator for a relationship, I have many strong D/s ties that are based on different levels of friendship that while I love the other person a great deal I am certainly not in love with them, so from my stand point and how I feel about emotions and Domination being interlinked then I would have to say an outstanding yes, BUT an emotional link for me does not have to include the romanticized version of love. Like I said, it has layers lol....

<edited because the trolls on my keyboard decided that this would be a great time to get jiggy heh >

< Message edited by Reflectivesoul -- 1/30/2007 9:58:11 PM >

_____________________________

ooooo..I bet THATS gonna leave a mark!!!!

Equal opportunity pisser on-er ... heh..

Gimme some crayons, I want color and I want it now DAMNIT!

(in reply to Archer)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 9:56:34 PM

juliaoceania

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

quote:

when you said in the beginning of your relationship you DID submit without the emotional ties but in turn you stated that you can not submit without the emotions being involved as well..

I said I was not " in love", I did not say I was not emotionally involved, there is a BIG difference. I do not think that emotional involvement starts out as love... but that is just me. I know some people think of emotions as love always, but caring for someone, liking them intensely, feeling infatuated, is not love.

_____________________________

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 Reflectivesoul)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 10:00:26 PM

Reflectivesoul

Posts: 1777
Joined: 4/25/2006
Status: offline

julia,

That is my bad in the interpretation then, because in the initial reading of it I took it as there wasnt any kind of emotional bond there but over time it grew into one... and yes I agree with you that just because there is an emotional tie doesnt mean that there is the romaticized love involved... ( see above post lol )

_____________________________

ooooo..I bet THATS gonna leave a mark!!!!

Equal opportunity pisser on-er ... heh..

Gimme some crayons, I want color and I want it now DAMNIT!

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/30/2007 11:54:37 PM

ExSteelAgain

Posts: 1803
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Georgia
Status: offline

Sure subs can be dominated without emotion. You play, they obey because they like the play and in their mind that is the way it is supposed to be. However, without debating the definition of love, I also know if I FEEL love, my form of domination will be stronger. Narcissistic people show much weakness over time.

_____________________________

You can paint a cinder block bright pastel pink, but it's still a cinder block. (By Me.)

(in reply to SirKenin)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/31/2007 7:14:36 AM

twicehappy

Posts: 2706
Joined: 2/5/2006
Status: offline

While technically you are correct, for me at least if there is no emotional connection there will be no submission period.

_____________________________

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.

The human heart is not a finite container but an ever expanding universe with all the stars contained there in.

(in reply to SirDiscipliner69)

Profile

Post #: 39

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be dom... - 1/31/2007 7:14:37 AM

CreativeDominant

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain

Sure subs can be dominated without emotion. You play, they obey because they like the play and in their mind that is the way it is supposed to be. However, without debating the definition of love, I also know if I FEEL love, my form of domination will be stronger. Narcissistic people show much weakness over time.

And without debating the definition of love, I will state this for myself only...

I can dominate with little to no emotional attachment other than respect...it is for a short period of time and it is very finite in its boundaries as is the submission.
As my emotional attachment to someone grows, the domination becomes more fulfilling and more satisfying and deeper and complex...as Reflective said, layer begins to be piled upon layer.
The two times that I have experienced an in-love relationship with a submissive, the dominance and submission were indeed immensely satisfying.
That being said, so was the "loving" Master/submissive relationship I shared with the submissive who was married.

My preferred relationship is with a submissive that is in love with me and that I am in love with. As I stated to a friend on here recently on the other side though; one has to be careful with the emotion of love to define it clearly in your head and differentiate whether or not you are in love with someone versus loving them and as to how much difference that makes. So many people will not do something unless they are "in love". They cover up all sorts of behaviors that they would like to engage in but which society and upbringing have engrained in them as being "wrong" unless they are in love with the person they engage in these activities with. I disagree with that concept to a certain extent...and it is not just because I am an outlaw or a "user", but rather because I have been on the receiving end of someone telling me they were in love with me and doing all kinds of nasty and delicious things with me only to have them tell me they weren't in love with me within one week of telling me they could not live without me. In my world, my being in love with someone doesn't end in a week...at least without some hell of a reason. So as you can imagine...since I had allowed myself to fall in love with her (my choice, not hers BUT based on what I thought was the expression of her "true" feelings)...I wound up being pretty broken up, resulting in my statement on other posts about having been to the heartbreak festival and getting the T-shirt. This is why I have grown much more cautious through the years.

< Message edited by CreativeDominant -- 1/31/2007 7:30:45 AM >

(in reply to ExSteelAgain)

Profile

Post #: 40