RE: Would You Be Bound?

RE: Would You Be Bound? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive

Message

ToServeIsToLive -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/12/2007 3:48:22 PM)
In my response to that post, I wrote appreciation of the Domme, and I meant it to be inclusive of a lot of reasons the biggest of which would be love. However, I recogized that it would be possible in certain situations for it to happen without love being at the forefront so I tried to use a broader term, which probably didn't read the way I wanted it to...

MadRabbit -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/12/2007 3:55:18 PM)
On the flip side, I wont and didnt have interest in having someone serve me that I did NOT have an emotional investment in. I'm not looking for a maid or a friend with benefits at this stage in my life.

Wildfleurs -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/12/2007 3:55:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure I did not wish to hijack the thread that prompted this question, What Binds You The Most?, but the answers I saw there made me curious. It appeared as if the majority of subs and slaves were quick to answer that it is the love or similar emotions they feel that binds them to their dominant. But I wonder what the answers would be if the dominant did not in some way share that bond (assuming that they do)? Would you be as bound to your dominant if he or she did not have an emotional investment in you? If they viewed their ownership of you as a purely unemotional relationship and one where you should serve because it is both your place and your agreement? If he or she was ambivalent about whether you love or have any emotional attachment to them, just as long as you abide by your agreement and serve them obediently? Its a little hard if the choice is just the exact opposite and extreme with an unemotional relationship. I think to engage in any relationship with someone there has to be emotions involved - but the emotion doesn't have to be love. There can be respect, kindness, care, and fondness. Initially and for a while my owner didn't love me, while I did love him. It was occasionally difficult, more so because I don't think I was as secure in my place (only due to time involved, not because of the lack of love) so when I'd see lovey dovey D/s couples I'd feel like maybe I was missing out or doing something different. But overall I wouldn't say it bothered me because I was comfortable overall with loving him even if he didn't love me. Fast forward to present he does love me so I'm not sure how easy it would be to go back, however I think I would have continued to be content in the relationship if he had never eventually loved me. I was looking for, and have an owner. I wasn't looking for a boyfriend or a lover, nor am I interested in one. C~

nephandi -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/12/2007 4:06:06 PM)
i agree to that, love is not needed but some emotional atatchemnt is.

Quivver -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/12/2007 5:53:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie No. I need to be able to love. I never asked him to love me in return; only to please accept the love I feel for him. If he had been ambivalent about my feelings toward him, that means he would not really care about owning ALL of me, because he wouldn't be receiving my heart. And I couldn't submit fully to a partial owner. My sentiments exactly. Yet to get to this point is that rough road that I think many of us all off of and miss the final act where this kind of interaction actually works.

asassylilslave -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/12/2007 7:20:12 PM)
quote: Would you be as bound to your dominant if he or she did not have an emotional investment in you? If they viewed their ownership of you as a purely unemotional relationship and one where you should serve because it is both your place and your agreement? If he or she was ambivalent about whether you love or have any emotional attachment to them, just as long as you abide by your agreement and serve them obediently? With the right person and the right personality; yes. I don't need for him to be emotionally 'invested' in the relationship.

porcelaine -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/12/2007 7:44:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure Would you be as bound to your dominant if he or she did not have an emotional investment in you? If they viewed their ownership of you as a purely unemotional relationship and one where you should serve because it is both your place and your agreement? If he or she was ambivalent about whether you love or have any emotional attachment to them, just as long as you abide by your agreement and serve them obediently? There was a time when I would emphatically say no without hesitance. However, at present I find myself bound to one that happens to love and cherish me dearly, but the emotional attachment is only one aspect of the reasons I feel tied to him. I believe that at some point we move beyond emotion and reach something deeper within that speaks of our need to serve and another's desire to master or own. I find that as time passes my love grows as does my willingness and yearning to yield and move toward him in a manner that I never considered in the past. While love may have been the catalyst at the start, it is no longer the sole reason that I remain and endure for his sake and mine. porcelaine

TemptingNviceSub -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/12/2007 8:24:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy Easy answer, Hell No! Ditto with twice here...Tempting

aurora31 -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/12/2007 8:46:55 PM)
I believe I need an emotional attachment yes. I need to feel loved respected and cherished among other things and I need to return those feelings. That being said I do not need to be in love. There is a big difference there. My Sir also does not believe in being in love with his slaves. He feels that to fall in love with them would then allow his emotions to stand in the way of our path, our growth both as a person and a submissive and he will not stand in the way of that. But he does love us deeply. And he says he has had far more meaning full relationships this way then he ever did in the nilla world or when he was in love with his partners.

beltainefaerie -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/13/2007 2:06:11 AM)
I have "played" with people to whom I had no emotional attachment. In terms of a relationship, I think that inherently implies some sort of attachment and investment. I also recognize many types of love. the way I love my brat is vastly different from the way I love my Master, my sisterslave, my husband or our girlfriend. I am in love with my Master, my husband and my girlfriend. I love my brat and my sisterslave. It doesn't matter that my Master would likely not describe himself as in love with anyone but his wife (my sisterslave). I know that he respects and cherishes me and that is important. I suppose for long term relationships, it matters to me that people care about me, but it doesn't matter to me whether their feelings for me are the same as my feelings for them.

Aileen68 -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/13/2007 5:21:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure I did not wish to hijack the thread that prompted this question, What Binds You The Most?, but the answers I saw there made me curious. It appeared as if the majority of subs and slaves were quick to answer that it is the love or similar emotions they feel that binds them to their dominant. But I wonder what the answers would be if the dominant did not in some way share that bond (assuming that they do)? Would you be as bound to your dominant if he or she did not have an emotional investment in you? If they viewed their ownership of you as a purely unemotional relationship and one where you should serve because it is both your place and your agreement? If he or she was ambivalent about whether you love or have any emotional attachment to them, just as long as you abide by your agreement and serve them obediently? I was in a realtionship where there was a lot of emotions and connections between us. We talked daily, met as often as possible and I had a very good sense that I was cared for emotionally, physically. He was a friend. It was an extremely intense relationship. My next relationship was the exact opposite. Outside of our meetings there was virtually no communication beyond what I initiated. It became apparent fairly quickly that he had no desire to know anything about me and that he really cared for nothing other than what I could offer him sexually. I was not cared for on any level other than knowing I wouldn't be physically harmed. The result was extreme sub drop for me to the point of no longer getting excited about meeting, even dreading it. Even after telling him on countless occasions that I needed more contact and more concern I never received it. Needless to say, that relationship is over. So yeah...I need that emotional connection to justify the energy that I put into a relationship. It makes it much more enjoyable. I was much more enjoyable because I wasn't tense and upset all of the time. It was a shame because the one who didn't want to connect emotionally with me never truely got to see what I was really like. Instead, he only got to see someone who was unhappy and very passive aggressive. I think he would have liked me much more if he was more open to connecting on a level beyond the sexual. I really did like him. That's why I stuck with it for far longer than I knew I should have. edited to add...I wrote before reading any other replies. To clarify, for me emotions are not meant to mean love. By emotions I mean general caring and concern. Like what you would give a good friend.

spankmepink11 -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/13/2007 5:48:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aileen68 I was in a realtionship where there was a lot of emotions and connections between us. We talked daily, met as often as possible and I had a very good sense that I was cared for emotionally, physically. He was a friend. It was an extremely intense relationship. My next relationship was the exact opposite. Outside of our meetings there was virtually no communication beyond what I initiated. It became apparent fairly quickly that he had no desire to know anything about me and that he really cared for nothing other than what I could offer him sexually. I was not cared for on any level other than knowing I wouldn't be physically harmed. The result was extreme sub drop for me to the point of no longer getting excited about meeting, even dreading it. Even after telling him on countless occasions that I needed more contact and more concern I never received it. Needless to say, that relationship is over. So yeah...I need that emotional connection to justify the energy that I put into a relationship. It makes it much more enjoyable. I was much more enjoyable because I wasn't tense and upset all of the time. It was a shame because the one who didn't want to connect emotionally with me never truely got to see what I was really like. Instead, he only got to see someone who was unhappy and very passive aggressive. I think he would have liked me much more if he was more open to connecting on a level beyond the sexual. I really did like him. That's why I stuck with it for far longer than I knew I should have. edited to add...I wrote before reading any other replies. To clarify, for me emotions are not meant to mean love. By emotions I mean general caring and concern. Like what you would give a good friend. Aileen, sometimes you scare me....get out of my head... Does the "no communication fella " contact you you every 3 or 4 months and act completely surprised that you have no interest in "hooking up" ? [8\|]

Aileen68 -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/13/2007 6:06:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spankmepink11 Aileen, sometimes you scare me....get out of my head... Does the "no communication fella " contact you you every 3 or 4 months and act completely surprised that you have no interest in "hooking up" ? [8\|] It's newly ended and somehow I don't see that being a possibility since I'm pretty sure that he detests me. He is actually not bad at all. We just clashed on some levels that I'm still trying to figure out. I think I proved to be more than he was willing to handle or had the time for. At another time it may have worked out nicely.

marieToo -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/13/2007 6:25:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure I did not wish to hijack the thread that prompted this question, What Binds You The Most?, but the answers I saw there made me curious. It appeared as if the majority of subs and slaves were quick to answer that it is the love or similar emotions they feel that binds them to their dominant. But I wonder what the answers would be if the dominant did not in some way share that bond (assuming that they do)? Would you be as bound to your dominant if he or she did not have an emotional investment in you? If they viewed their ownership of you as a purely unemotional relationship and one where you should serve because it is both your place and your agreement? This reminds me alot of my first dominant. After spending time with him, I would go home feeling depressed because being with him was like being with a robot. I was very emotional in my submission to him, but there was no one to give it to, just this vacant person on the other end that I was serving. When I submit to someone, I grow to love and feel very attached, even dependant on his control, so I know I could never go back to something like that. But on the other hand, I do not need someone to necessarily love me in return in order for me to submit to them. I dont even need them to be emotionally "invested" in me. But I do need them to be an emotional being and to be sensitive enough to feel me and care about me. I mean, there has to be some connection, but it doesn't need to be overt to be substantial to me. I actually prefer it to be subtle because somehow it has more meaning to me that way. Further, I seriously doubt I could submit to someone who falls in love with me; not only is it too conventional for me, but it also makes me feel very uncomfortable. This is not to say that I couldnt submit to someone who cares for me deeply, but if it ever crossed the line into that sappy romantic type of love, it would positively shatter the entire thing for me.

innatedesire -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/13/2007 6:56:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure I did not wish to hijack the thread that prompted this question, What Binds You The Most?, but the answers I saw there made me curious. It appeared as if the majority of subs and slaves were quick to answer that it is the love or similar emotions they feel that binds them to their dominant. But I wonder what the answers would be if the dominant did not in some way share that bond (assuming that they do)? Would you be as bound to your dominant if he or she did not have an emotional investment in you? If they viewed their ownership of you as a purely unemotional relationship and one where you should serve because it is both your place and your agreement? If he or she was ambivalent about whether you love or have any emotional attachment to them, just as long as you abide by your agreement and serve them obediently? No.........Been there done that never again.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/13/2007 8:12:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Quivver quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie No. I need to be able to love. I never asked him to love me in return; only to please accept the love I feel for him. If he had been ambivalent about my feelings toward him, that means he would not really care about owning ALL of me, because he wouldn't be receiving my heart. And I couldn't submit fully to a partial owner. My sentiments exactly. Yet to get to this point is that rough road that I think many of us all off of and miss the final act where this kind of interaction actually works. It was indeed a rough road for me. He was the first person my love was ever safe with.

Aubre -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/13/2007 10:18:47 AM)
I knew this very attractive and successful woman who became very sexually attracted to this man she worked with, she lusted after him very much and he was all she wanted to talk about. He was everything she ever wanted in a man or so she thought. Turned out - he was very involved in the scene, and he was also very gay. Her feelings for her were so strong, she offered to be his slave while knowing he could never love her in a romantic way, and would never want sex with her. At first it was very tough for her but she adapted. He was seemed to get off on knowing that he could get her to do whatever he wanted and basically didn't have to do much besides give her a word of praise and treat her with a modicum of concern. He made watch while he played and made love to his gay partners. It tore her up inside but I guess over time she learned to live with it, because she still is his slave, and lives with him now. I don't know how she does it.

agirl -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/13/2007 3:09:03 PM)
I'm sure M is fond of me. And I'm sure that I'm fond of him. I haven't had any other emotional attachment nor am I likely to receive one. I have loved people before; this relationship doesn't resemble that kind of love. I've nothing to measure it against, really. It stands alone. agirl

Arastella -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/14/2007 6:43:24 AM)
I serve because my heart goes out to Mistress and I wish to make Her happy, please Her in all things. If Mistress didn't love me, my heart wouldn't be so attached to Her, and therefore I would not be motivated to please Her. It wouldn't work out at all in my view without mutual love.

Daddy4Princess4 -> RE: Would You Be Bound? (2/15/2007 12:13:57 PM)
How about an "it depends"? If she creates that much desire in me to serve her, the pleasure is in that service, not in how she feels about me.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875