RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 7:23:17 PM)

I don't disagree with either of these statements. Yes, people need to have things in common other than the one thing that brought them together. Yes, things change, even defined structure; nothing has to be rigid or written in stone. You didn't ask about these...you asked for definitions. ;-)

Master Fire



goodpet -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 7:33:28 PM)

For this girl it is a Master/slave relationship and we live it 24/7. I work and have family obligation to my college kids, and vanilla interests and hobbies. But in ALL things, the Captain has the bottom line authority and control. We say it is a no-limit contact in that we did not spell out limits in the contract. but... after knowing him for years before we went into a M/s relationship, i know His limits and directions are compatible with mine. So while there are no limits spelled out, His matches mine and i have enough trust that they will never come up (ie, children, scat, drugs, and semi-trucks).

I don't worry about being given an order that does not match what i am able to obey.  and on the rare chance He goes haywire on me and if He ever said, "girl jump off this building" i would just answer, "Sir, i need You to show me how first."

it is working wonderfully for us. We are both serious about the dynamics and relationship. We continue to seek out community and like minded folks for fellowship. We both seek more education and training and we give back in education and training.

Yes it is a viable way to live our lives.  He is in control. i submit to Him in all things. Sometimes willingly and happily sometimes with a frown and feet dragging but i do submit in all things.

and if we survive buying this house together then we can survive anything....



SlyStone -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 7:57:50 PM)

You didn't ask about these...you asked for definitions. ;-)



All I want is everything :)


Ok, how about this, and this is for everyone.

Would you agree that in general the d/s relationship, as we have defined it here, by its very nature, is more viable in the short term than the long term?



szobras -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 8:05:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

You didn't ask about these...you asked for definitions. ;-)



All I want is everything :)


Ok, how about this, and this is for everyone.

Would you agree that in general the d/s relationship, as we have defined it here, by its very nature, is more viable in the short term than the long term?


I do not find Ds in itself by nature, to be any more viable in short term than long term.



bellanotte -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 8:22:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

Here when someone says they are looking for a long term d/s relationship I think it is a much more complicated and undefined  quest. It seems that they are looking for all of the above plus some kind of authority transfer but the twist here is the  amount of authority transfer one is comfortable with, and I think it is very possible for people to think they have shared views here but in fact don't.

I am thinking that it is hard enough to find a life partner, and when we add the need for a  specific type of relationship with that possible life partner, and than we also specify that it must be a long term relationship, people are asking for an awful lot.

Wouldn't it be better to start small and see how things evolve?



SlyStone,

I don't think it's necessarily a dichotomy. For any LTR to develop, whether it is a D/s-based one or not, to a certain extent vanilla interests also have to be compatible. But as you said, even in a vanilla relationship, much is negotiated (kids, jobs, finances,  etc).

The amount and type of power-exchange/authority-transfer each person is comfortable with is something else to add to the negotiating list: just like kids, jobs, etc.

Having a list that includes both is the key I think. One of the first things my mentor had me do when she started working with me was to make two lists: what I DID want in a Dominant and what I did NOT want in a Dominant. These lists include both vanilla characteristics and D/s ones.

Any relationship is a matter of negotiating, whether it is done overtly, on the surface; or covertly, subconsciously, without awareness of the process.

Because of that, I think it is VERY good to start small (i.e., friends first)... but I think hiding the fact that your ultimate goal is a TPE, for instance, would be just as harmful as a vanilla hiding the fact that they wanted to eventually marry someone.

Just because you state things as a goal or preference doesn't mean individuals have to fiit all those; that would be impossible as no one is made to order.

Communication, as always, I think is the biggest key.





SlyStone -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 8:31:33 PM)


I do not find Ds in itself by nature, to be any more viable in short term than long term.



Than why are there not more long term d/s relationships?

I mean based on the majority of submissive profiles I have read it seems like almost everyone here is looking for it, but the reality is more the exception than the rule.

And I am not talking about a vanilla marriage where the man is in charge and the woman is meek, I am talking about a structured defined d/s relationship, be it of any sexual orientation, that has lasted more than 5 years and possibly a life time.

And I do realize that it does happen and I appreciate those who have posted here that it has worked for them. But again I think it is the exception, not the rule.

My feeling is that the structure of the d/s relationship is difficult to maintain long term due to outside needs and internal personal growth interfering with the basic core dynamic. The key would seem to be constantly redefining the structure which may grow exhausting over time and one reason people give up.

But than again, I could be completely wrong :)



SlyStone -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 8:38:41 PM)

he amount and type of power-exchange/authority-transfer each person is comfortable with is something else to add to the negotiating list: just like kids, jobs, etc.



I think the problem is that it changes with time so negotiating it is like trying to predict the future, and yet reaching an understanding is of upmost importance for the relationship to work.

I enjoyed your post .



bellanotte -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 8:45:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

he amount and type of power-exchange/authority-transfer each person is comfortable with is something else to add to the negotiating list: just like kids, jobs, etc.



I think the problem is that it changes with time so negotiating it is like trying to predict the future, and yet reaching an understanding is of upmost importance for the relationship to work.

I enjoyed your post .



Thank you; I have enjoyed reading yours on this and other threads as well



bellanotte -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 8:49:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone
I think the problem is that it changes with time so negotiating it is like trying to predict the future, and yet reaching an understanding is of upmost importance for the relationship to work.



Ah, that is the kicker *grins.* I think perhaps the best shot would be to agree at the beginning of the relationship, whether or not a contract is used, to re-evaluate things at regular intervals (say, every six months at first; then if the relationship progressed to years perhaps every year or so.) If a contract is used, it can be changed as needed and resigned for that period of time (this forces the evaluation to take place else the contract expires). If a contract is not used, then the discussions can provide a bit of structure.

It perhaps would not always work.... but I know that preparing what I want to say for a scheduled discussion causes a certain amount of introspection and soul-searching. And communication is something that should always be practiced and improved.

Has anyone tried something along this route?





szobras -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 8:59:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone


I do not find Ds in itself by nature, to be any more viable in short term than long term.



Than why are there not more long term d/s relationships?

I mean based on the majority of submissive profiles I have read it seems like almost everyone here is looking for it, but the reality is more the exception than the rule.

And I am not talking about a vanilla marriage where the man is in charge and the woman is meek, I am talking about a structured defined d/s relationship, be it of any sexual orientation, that has lasted more than 5 years and possibly a life time.

And I do realize that it does happen and I appreciate those who have posted here that it has worked for them. But again I think it is the exception, not the rule.

My feeling is that the structure of the d/s relationship is difficult to maintain long term due to outside needs and internal personal growth interfering with the basic core dynamic. The key would seem to be constantly redefining the structure which may grow exhausting over time and one reason people give up.

But than again, I could be completely wrong :)


I do not think you are altogether wrong. I will clarify my statement. I think you have answered your own question. My answere was "Ds by it's nature."
Like most things, IT is viable. It is people that give up. No different than any other form of relationship. One thing is certain in life. That is change. I have been married for almost 12 years. Our marriage has not changed at all. Our relationship has and WIITWD. Because WE changed it. It is no different I feel than any other ride. If it is the long haul you strive for, Prepare to get tired, and when you do, your partner just as tired needs be there to help you keep going.



velvetears -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 9:18:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

So here are my questions:

What is your definition of a d/s relationship?

Is D/s a viable long term relationship orientated dynamic?


A relationship is two people who have some common ground on which they relate to one another in a significant way, commonalities that bring them together, they can "relate" to one another because they have things in common they can share.  A D/s relationship is just a particular way of structuring the commonalities and things they have in common. 

Is it viable long term?  i can't see why not, although i think a D/s relationship takes a bit more work in keeping that dynamic alive. i have heard it said, not saying i agree with this statement but that most D/s, M/s relationships don't last very long because of the nature of them, the reasoning being the average D/s M/s seeker needs more variety then the average person - interesting hypothesis, but i don't buy into it.



MasterGremlin -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 9:46:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

So here are my questions:

What is your definition of a d/s relationship?

 
This is what works for me. I was looking for a woman that found happiness in serving me and following my lead. I was looking for someone that would follow through thick and thin, not blindly but because she believed in me and was willing to risk all for that belief. I grew up in a household in which both parents were extreme Alpha personality types. I did not want to live in a house that had that type of turmoil (from my point of view) with a constantly changing power dynamic. For me, my house needs to be a tranquil escape from the outside world.
 
 
quote:

Is D/s a viable long term relationship orientated dynamic?


We have been living together for 9 years in June and married for the last 8 of those. While there are no guarantees our relationship feels stronger today than it ever has and things are looking very much UP.

I have two opinions on the viablity issues that you bring up.

1. How viable is a "normal" relationship? How many of those "normal" relationships are still together because no one wants to rock the boat or upset the status quo? How many feel that leaving one relationship for another is not going to change anything (where I believe someone in a unique style of relationship is more likely to move on if it's not right as they have something specific in mind) and so stay with the one that's not right for them but is ok?

2. There are an infinite flavors of D/s (almost as many as there are "actors" in the lifestyle). First you have to find someone that you make a connection with, then you have to open up and communicate your version of D/s to them, and then their vision of D/s has to match yours. Since D/s demands you to open up and communicate all this very sensitive and possibly embarrassing  information that may take you a week, a month, or 5 years to get it all out. This (to the outside world) can make it look like a lifestyle that doesn't support long term relationships but in reality it MAY be that those in D/s look for something very unique and take longer learning about their partner(s).

I've always felt as if I was 2 steps to the left of "normal" when interacting with the opposite sex. And as a teenager we didn't have the internet to share ideas and learn about things like you can now. So I went through a number of short term relationships trying to learn about myself and also my partner at the same time. Not because there was something wrong with the lifestyle, but rather because I was searching for answers about myself and also learning how to notice the traits I desired in my mate (or mates as things are turning out). This level of self reflection and learning by trial and error is going to mean more mistakes and therefore appear to have more unstable relationships to an outside observer.

These are just observations from my experience.

MG




SlyStone -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/11/2007 11:32:02 PM)

We have been living together for 9 years in June and married for the last 8 of those. While there are no guarantees our relationship feels stronger today than it ever has and things are looking very much UP.


My sincere congratulations!


How many feel that leaving one relationship for another is not going to change anything (where I believe someone in a unique style of relationship is more likely to move on if it's not right as they have something specific in mind) and so stay with the one that's not right for them but is ok?



So in other words people in a vanilla relationship are more likely to "settle" as opposed to someone seeking an alternative lifestyle, because if they leave the names might change but the relationship will remain the same? I don't know about that.

I don't think people stay in a bad relationship because they don't think there is anything better out there, I think they stay because they are afraid to risk losing what little they may have, and I think that would hold true for any relationship.

I do see your point that people seeking an alternative lifestyle may be more risk takers to begin with and therefore more willing to move on, but if that is true it only helps make my point that the short term is more viable than the long term for the lifestyle.




This level of self reflection and learning by trial and error is going to mean more mistakes and therefore appear to have more unstable relationships to an outside observer.



That is also an interesting perspective. I don't agree with it as it pertains to d/s because I don't think people into d/s are any more self reflective than anyone else.

I do understand you are also talking about coming to terms with one's sexual orientation, and there I do agree that self reflection may lead to more experimentation.



These are just observations from my experience.

I appreciate them.



Evanesce -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 1:16:41 AM)

quote:

Would you agree that in general the d/s relationship, as we have defined it here, by its very nature, is more viable in the short term than the long term?


If the relationship is based solely on the kink and power exchange, yes.  If the persons involved take the time to discover common interests and actually build something beyond BDSM, then it can and does work well in the long term.  However, maintaining the D/s dynamic is work... a LOT of work, especially on the part of the dominant partner.  If they start to let things slide, the structure of the relationship falls apart very quickly.  I think a lot of D/s relationships self destruct in a very short time because people jump into them without fully realizing their responsibilities to the relationship.



susie -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 6:42:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone


I do not find Ds in itself by nature, to be any more viable in short term than long term.



Than why are there not more long term d/s relationships?

I mean based on the majority of submissive profiles I have read it seems like almost everyone here is looking for it, but the reality is more the exception than the rule.

And I am not talking about a vanilla marriage where the man is in charge and the woman is meek, I am talking about a structured defined d/s relationship, be it of any sexual orientation, that has lasted more than 5 years and possibly a life time.

And I do realize that it does happen and I appreciate those who have posted here that it has worked for them. But again I think it is the exception, not the rule.

My feeling is that the structure of the d/s relationship is difficult to maintain long term due to outside needs and internal personal growth interfering with the basic core dynamic. The key would seem to be constantly redefining the structure which may grow exhausting over time and one reason people give up.

But than again, I could be completely wrong :)



Why are there so many divorces? why are there many vanilla people on their second, third or even more marriages? I have had many relationships in the past, some that have not lasted as long as the current D/s one that I am in. The fact that this one has lasted as long as it has and has all the signs of lasting far longer than any other has little to do with the fact that it is D/s and far more to do with the person I am in the relationship with. Of course he is my Master but he is also my lover, best friend and soul mate. We had some things in common when we met but during our time together we have found or created other things that we now share and enjoy.

For me the key word in all of this is "relationship" be it vanilla or D/s.



SlyStone -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 7:11:02 AM)

a LOT of work, especially on the part of the dominant partner.



Good point! And in fact over time always having the power/authority in a relationship may indeed become exhausting because the d/s relationship is not an equal one. Yes, it is equal in terms of the exchange of power, but not equal in terms of responsibility for direction and action.

There is also the possibility that the dominant is put on a pedestal by the submissive, more so than in any other type of relationship, and over time we will all fall from grace, it is to be human after all.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 7:26:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

You didn't ask about these...you asked for definitions. ;-)



All I want is everything :)


Ok, how about this, and this is for everyone.

Would you agree that in general the d/s relationship, as we have defined it here, by its very nature, is more viable in the short term than the long term?



That depends on how you and your partner choose to fulfill your respective responsibilities in the relationship. 
If each lives up to the responsibilities they agree to, they have a good foundation.  But the foundation is only that which holds up the house and the house is built of different elements.  If all they have in common is kinky play, then I would have to say it is probably more viable in the short term.  If all they have in common is kinky play and a high interest in discussions of BDSM from all its angles, then the relationship would probably be longer.  Now, add in an ability to relate to each other on other levels...via touch or communication or just a shared nod as they agree on something thought but not said...and you have a longer term D/s relationship.

But...for those who feel that eventually that all the commonalities in interests besides D/s will eventually keep the relationship going once the D/s is gone...all I can do is point to those threads where not just dominants but submissives have noted that, for them, the loss of D/s in a relationship could wind up ending the relationship.
Count me in on that.  I do not want a submissive who is using D/s as a stepping stone to a vanilla relationship.  I don't think many dominants do.  And yuppers, someday, the increasing age is going to get in the way of all but the easiest and safest of play but it should not diminish the principals of the D/s relationship.



MistressJennylov -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 7:27:19 AM)

My definition of a d/s relationship is one where

1. There is complete obedience from the slave/sub
2. There is Trust, Loyaly, Honesty between both parties
3.T he slave/sub know his place



Bearlee -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 8:48:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

That depends on how you and your partner choose to fulfill your respective responsibilities in the relationship. 
If each lives up to the responsibilities they agree to, they have a good foundation.  But the foundation is only that which holds up the house and the house is built of different elements.  If all they have in common is kinky play, then I would have to say it is probably more viable in the short term.  If all they have in common is kinky play and a high interest in discussions of BDSM from all its angles, then the relationship would probably be longer.  Now, add in an ability to relate to each other on other levels...via touch or communication or just a shared nod as they agree on something thought but not said...and you have a longer term D/s relationship.

But...for those who feel that eventually that all the commonalities in interests besides D/s will eventually keep the relationship going once the D/s is gone...all I can do is point to those threads where not just dominants but submissives have noted that, for them, the loss of D/s in a relationship could wind up ending the relationship.
Count me in on that.  I do not want a submissive who is using D/s as a stepping stone to a vanilla relationship.  I don't think many dominants do.  And yuppers, someday, the increasing age is going to get in the way of all but the easiest and safest of play but it should not diminish the principals of the D/s relationship. 
  (bolding is mine…b)
 
Exactly, CD!  I couldn’t agree more, either.  What is the point in looking on a BDSM dating-site, if what you really want is a vanilla relationship?  I don’t consider this ‘last chance’ shopping; this is what I want in my life…24/7.  Of course, being two strong, capable people…we would have much of what looks to be ‘vanilla’…trips to the zoo, dinner parties with neighbors and vanilla friends, work, family…  Still, for me there must be that underlying control that He has and that I have given up.  I want that.  While I enjoy beatings and bindings more than I can say…90% of D/s is not about ‘sceening’, but about living a life together.  I suppose sometimes the life I desire might look a lot like the Cleavers…but He, from time to time, will tell me to do something or grab me in such a way that…I’ll know we’re happily living a D/s lifestyle. 
 
I think it’s a good thing to, from time to time, clarify the direction a relationship is heading; to ensure it is on-course to fulfilling the needs and desires of both (or more?) people.  CD, you said “…how you and your partner choose to fulfill your respective responsibilities in the relationship…”  Again, perhaps another reason to write things together; what are those responsibilities, in which direction do the two wish to head?  I believe it’s got to be win/win…even in a D/s relationship.  I believe in love and romance and that a Dominant must be able to celebrate the relationship as much as should the submissive.  Perhaps that is why maybe contracts are a good thing; it’s hard to miss the target when it’s spelled out right in front of you.  Though…I would guess sometimes the spelling out can be quite an exercise, too!  While I’m not looking so much for a husband as for a partner, I do imagine living together.  Should I find myself with one who isn’t looking for that, or who just wants kinky sex from time to time, I’d have to say that’s just not what I was looking for…and like so many here, I’d wander off.  I want to be of service, but I need to be used, too…by someone who’s tickled pink I’m his; yeah, long term.
 
Just thoughts,
bear



BeingChewsie -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 1:50:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone


I do not find Ds in itself by nature, to be any more viable in short term than long term.



Than why are there not more long term d/s relationships?

I mean based on the majority of submissive profiles I have read it seems like almost everyone here is looking for it, but the reality is more the exception than the rule.

And I am not talking about a vanilla marriage where the man is in charge and the woman is meek, I am talking about a structured defined d/s relationship, be it of any sexual orientation, that has lasted more than 5 years and possibly a life time.

And I do realize that it does happen and I appreciate those who have posted here that it has worked for them. But again I think it is the exception, not the rule.

My feeling is that the structure of the d/s relationship is difficult to maintain long term due to outside needs and internal personal growth interfering with the basic core dynamic. The key would seem to be constantly redefining the structure which may grow exhausting over time and one reason people give up.

But than again, I could be completely wrong :)




Why aren't there more long term vanilla relationships lasting 5 years or more?

We have had an ownership dyanmic for the past 7 years, with no signs of stopping :). The power disparity is always in play, it is never a conventional relationship. We believe this is because exerting power over people is part of his core nature and surrendering to a power greater than myself is part of my core nature...in fact they are a driving force in the relationships we choose and have chosen in the past. Our past relationship have ended because one of the parties either could not keep the power disparity going because they were for lack of a better term "faking it" and his female partners could not live under a dynamic in which they had no say and no freedom over the long term...yet for us together, it is perfect. We don't struggle to keep this going, I'm not sure what outside needs or what type of growth you see as damaging to the core dynamic but that has not been our experience at all.



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875