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

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



Message

thetammyjo -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 2:47:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

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.



I think that because so many people have fantasies that fuel their BDSM interests it can be very easy to give up when reality happens.

I also think that too many people jump into relationships without fully considering all the information, if they bothered to gather much to begin with.

Couple all of this with the fact that what we do is not supportive socially, legally, or in almost any other way by the dominant society and you have a recipe for difficulty.

If you are willing to do the work almost any type of relationship can be long-term. A better question is: Is it healthy for you the individual? If it is, then you should work at maintaining it; if it isn't healthy for you, you need to get out.



SlyStone -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 6:42:43 PM)

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.


So would you still be in the relationship if it ceased to be a d/s dynamic? I mean isn't that the true test of a  relationship? Forget about if you would stay if he ended up in a coma or some such thing.

Over the long term, if the d/s component was gone, would you stay?




SlyStone -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 6:46:11 PM)

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.



Isn't that what we are talking about here?. The d/s relationship leaves little room for compromise. In many ways it is what it is and when it is gone it is gone. When one person is no longer willing or able to take the authority or one person is no longer willing to submit the authority it is over. You can talk about adjusting it and transferring less or more power etc, but in the end if the power exchange is gone the d/s relationship is over.

But isn't it that uncompromising conditionality that is so difficult to sustain over the long term? I mean people do change and needs do change and I think as we grow older our need for authority and our need to give up that authority may change. And for one partner that may mean the loss of the d/s and for another it may mean a change in the d/s dynamic.

I don't think this is about definitions,in fact maybe I should have titled the thread "redefining the d/s relationship" because personally I think in order to sustain over the long term people need to redefine the dynamic to fit their needs.

But here on a site where people are trying to connect, definitions are of some importance as people must define their needs in order to have them met, and if we all have our own definitions the tower of babel ensues.

I don't have any answers here. I am trying to find out if a long term d/s relationship is really viable, and if it is, what can help sustain it. I think it is an important subject when I look at all those profiles seeking it, even demanding it, and I wonder if they are being realistic in their expectations or chasing a dream. 



SlyStone -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 6:52:22 PM)

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"



I wonder if saying they were faking it is putting it into to harsh a light. It may be that they were very real, but were simply unable, or unwilling, to sustain it over the long term.



KnightofMists -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 7:11:32 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.



Looking at the profiles on CM is hardly enough to make any creditiable judgement that D/s is more difficult to do long term than short term.  That comparison is comparable to looking at those in the bar scene and stating that there are very few long-term relationships and it is more likely to have short term relationsship or be single than it is to meet long-term relationships in our society.  CM and other online sites are more a magnet for those looking than it is to those that have already an established relationship going.   I used to look around on a more than a few search sites, now that I am content with the relationships I have that is all in the past.  I am on CM for no reason than the boards and not to search for another partner.

Also... keep in mind that a significant amount of married relationships in society fail in the first 3 years and by the time one hits 5 years it is approaching 50%.... So why should D/s relationships be significantly different than society?  Yes.. I know many like to promote the D/s lifestyle as the ultimate thing and better etc etc etc... well that is just BS.... it will succeed and fail like any other relationship structure and often for some of the same basic reasons.

Alandra and I have will be together 20 years this coming summer.  It never started out to the intense level of D/s that now exist.  But even at it's most intense level we have been at it for almost half of our life together.  I suspect that things will only get better.  I would say that living our lifestyle has only increased our possibilities for the future.  The more we live a life that is appropriate to our inner nature the happier we will be and we have never been happier.  At the end of April, Kyra will be a committed part of Alandra's and my life for 2 years and we have known each other for over 2 & a half years.  As I said... we have never been happier. 



susie -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 7:15:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

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.


So would you still be in the relationship if it ceased to be a d/s dynamic? I mean isn't that the true test of a  relationship? Forget about if you would stay if he ended up in a coma or some such thing.

Over the long term, if the d/s component was gone, would you stay?




I doubt if the D/s component would ever go because of the person he is. He is a dominant and does not switch it on or off it is always there as part of him. Of course real life and its many issues surround us all the time. I am at the moment recovering from a cancer operation which has obviously changed the way we live our lives recently. He has had to care for me and do things around the home that I would normally do for him and the more physical side of our relationship has had to be curtailed due to frequent hospital and doctors visits. But not once in all the time he has been caring for him have I seen him as anything but my Master because that is the person he is. The only way I can see him ever changing is if, as you say, he was incapacitated in some way, and no I would not leave him if he were in a coma or seriously ill. I love him way too much to even consider such a thing.



KnightofMists -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 7:26:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

So would you still be in the relationship if it ceased to be a d/s dynamic?


This question is like asking... Would you still be alive if you stopped breathing.

The answer.. Yes.. but, Not for long!

Being in a D/s dynamic is not something that I define and try to live up to.  It is more looking back and seeing this is how I live and try to explain why it is what it is to others.  Since the beginning of my relationship with Alandra I have had the power of authority.  It was natural for her to ask and for me to decide.  She looked for a person to decide things for the relationship and I seeked to be the decision maker in my relationships.

So... would I still be in the relationship if it ceased to be a D/s dyanmic...

Yes but not for long!  But before it ended... there would be alot of unhappy steps to travel as well.



Griswold -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 7:31:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone


So much of what people put in their profiles is open to interpretation and misinterpretation. If I say in my profile that I love to travel for instance, it could mean that I like a vacation once a year, I am interested in seeing the world, or that I am off to the Congo to study the mating habits of African Pygmies. If I say I love to eat out it could mean that I always super size my double cheeseburger, or that I have my own table at Alinea and am a regular at Charlie Trotters's.

The bulk of submissive's I have encountered at this site are looking for a long term D/s relationship, as clearly stated in their profile, which includes seeking a commonality of vanilla interests as well. But one assumes, since they are looking here, that first and foremost they are looking for a d/s relationship, whatever that is.

And frankly I think it is often the case that they don't have a clue what that is since it is just a general umbrella term that needs to be self defined to have any meaning. And if they have defined it for themselves, I betcha it is different from the next persons and so on and so on.

I think the main problem occurs when one person tries to apply the common definition of a vanilla relationship to the d/s dynamic and the other person tries to apply the d/s dynamic to a vanilla relationship, and the result is confusion on all sides and the proverbial ships passing in the night.

And while it is true that labels and definitions don't matter and we should all be able to determine for ourselves what a good relationship is and what d/s is etc, when people are attempting to find each other under these conditions, it seems that defining and communicating that definition is of some importance.




So here are my questions:

What is your definition of a d/s relationship?

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


(That was the longest motherfucking way to get to two questions that I've seen in years).



SlyStone -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 8:23:57 PM)

Looking at the profiles on CM is hardly enough to make any creditiable judgement that D/s is more difficult to do long term than short term.  That comparison is comparable to looking at those in the bar scene and stating that there are very few long-term relationships and it is more likely to have short term relationsship or be single than it is to meet long-term relationships in our society.  CM and other online sites are more a magnet for those looking than it is to those that have already an established relationship going.




There many people here looking for partners in a long term d/s relationship. And while there are local community meetings and private parties and clubs etc, for many people the internet is the best and perhaps only possible way to meet a potential partner.

So if CM is  the "d/s bar scene" for many it is the only bar in town, and based on the fact that a majority of people here, at least the majority of submissive's, seem to be looking for a long term relationship , it is not exactly a one night stand kinda bar at all.

And I do think that the expectations of the seekers of this site is of some importance, after all only a small minority use the message boards. Most people are here with the hope of meeting someone, and one's expectations are a determining factor in that search.

The question is, are those expectations born out of reality or fantasy.




MasterGremlin -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 8:46:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

Looking at the profiles on CM is hardly enough to make any creditiable judgement that D/s is more difficult to do long term than short term.  That comparison is comparable to looking at those in the bar scene and stating that there are very few long-term relationships and it is more likely to have short term relationsship or be single than it is to meet long-term relationships in our society.  CM and other online sites are more a magnet for those looking than it is to those that have already an established relationship going.




There many people here looking for partners in a long term d/s relationship. And while there are local community meetings and private parties and clubs etc, for many people the internet is the best and perhaps only possible way to meet a potential partner.

So if CM is  the "d/s bar scene" for many it is the only bar in town, and based on the fact that a majority of people here, at least the majority of submissive's, seem to be looking for a long term relationship , it is not exactly a one night stand kinda bar at all.

And I do think that the expectations of the seekers of this site is of some importance, after all only a small minority use the message boards. Most people are here with the hope of meeting someone, and one's expectations are a determining factor in that search.

The question is, are those expectations born out of reality or fantasy.




I agree that a large number of people build a fantasy of D/s in their mind that can't survive in the real world, and this is found more so in the online world. I am assuming that you would find people on the vanilla dating sites that build up an unrealistic expectation of the end result of meeting someone online. This is more a statement of human nature than D/s vs vanilla world.

I know a number of people in vanilla relationships that have been together over 20 years. What their relationship was at the beginning is not what their relationship is now.  Their relationship lasting is not due to it being vanilla or D/s but on their ability to honestly communicate as those changes happen (any couple together for a length of time are going to grow and change).

As KnightofMists states, I don't think I could be in a relationship that was not D/s. Much like I couldn't be in a relationship that was homosexual. Not that either relationship is better than the other, but rather because my personality is D/s and not homosexual.

MG



MasterFeenix -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/12/2007 11:07:56 PM)

I was in a relationship for 5 years that was based on the D/s and it crumbled miserably because of the lack of common ground in our "Vanilla" lives.  Two people in this type of relationship, as in any other, must have common interests, communication, honesty, and integrity.

It is impossible to define the D/s relationship though.  What one person wants is different from the next.  I would want my relationship to be built on trust and understanding, where submission is freely given to me.  Some subs, however may prefer a more forceful approach.

In the end I feel it is definitely a viable relationship.  Though I have to admit, it takes a higher caliber of person to hold it together.  In being born the way we were, extra challenges have been placed on us from the start.  It is definitely harder to put together this type of relationship, much less maintain it.  But just as any other relationship, if you want it to be long lasting it requires the same things any "Vanilla" relationship would.  Love, Trust, Communication, Respect, etc... and yes, it definitely helps if the sub likes the things you do together outside the bedroom.  Let's face it, we can't spend our entire lives in there.  Though some of us wish we could :D



BeingChewsie -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/13/2007 8:10:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

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"



I wonder if saying they were faking it is putting it into to harsh a light. It may be that they were very real, but were simply unable, or unwilling, to sustain it over the long term.



No, it isn't too harsh, it was not an inherent part of their nature to always want to be in control. It is really that simple. They found it daunting, tiring, they burned out on always being the one in charge and always having to make the decisions, they did not want to be the powerholder all the time. My owner wants and needs to be the powerholder all the time, it is an inherent part of who he is. He is this way in every area of his life not justpersonal relationships, it carries over into every aspect.



bastardandthewen -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/13/2007 5:19:58 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?


What I was looking for - and was frustrated at the lack of - was a dynamic with an individual that identified as dominant, but who was looking for something that fell between a no-questions-asked slave and a partner who was just kinky in bed.

I was looking for a relationship that was more then an occasionally bdsm play thing, yet, not something that would require me to be docile and obedient without question. A relationship that did not constantly put the focus solely on submission, but that had the undercurrent of control present in a subtle manner, something we could be aware of without others picking up on it, even in our day to day activities. A relationship where if something was unclear, or seemed unreasonable, I would have the freedom to question or ask for a full explanation before just jumping off the cliff. A relationship where my opinion was not only sometimes asked for, but valued and considered. Where the use of humiliation did not go over the line to true lasting degredation. Where I could feel "equal but different".

I found lots of Tops looking for the extremes; from Doms who wanted a live in houseslave who would not work or socialize without his permission, who should obey without question, and who would always be "lesser then" himself, to the far other end of the scale - I also found plenty of people looking for a casual submissive partner they could bring along to fetish clubs once a month or fuck/suck them on a whim occasionally.

I found few dominants who were looking for a full fledged relationship with another sumissive person. I'm guessing people looking for the well-rounded all encompassing relationship that happens to have elements of D/s running through it get snapped up fairly quickly, and thus are harder to find.

I aslo found issues with initially stating in my profiles that I was ok with Poly relationships. While I am good with relationships that include others, I envision more ballanced dynamics then the Doms I was approached by who were trying to build up a stable of compliant slaves for thier use.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone
I think the main problem occurs when one person tries to apply the common definition of a vanilla relationship to the d/s dynamic and the other person tries to apply the d/s dynamic to a vanilla relationship, and the result is confusion on all sides and the proverbial ships passing in the night.


I'd never really thoguht about it in these terms before, but I guess, loking back, I was looking for the D/s dynamics as applied to a vanilla relationship. I focussed less on the vanilla cause my needs there were not as pressing - nor were they hard to fulfill, as I'm pretty laid back and adaptable on the whole. I have few vanilla "dealbreakers". The biggest vanilla relationship issue I'd had in the past was an extreme issue of communication; and I feel that communication was a key issue that I could easilly address through the D/s discussions.



SlyStone -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/13/2007 9:29:00 PM)

I found few dominants who were looking for a full fledged relationship with another sumissive person. I'm guessing people looking for the well-rounded all encompassing relationship that happens to have elements of D/s running through it get snapped up fairly quickly, and thus are harder to find.




It's interesting that you say that. I would guess that  in fact a good portion of people here who are looking for a long term d/s relationship, ARE in fact looking for what you are talking about. They are not looking for kinky vanilla and they are not looking for a full power/authority transfer, they are looking for something in between.

The problem is that they are held back by the labels and definitions that they believe must define the dom/master sub/slave relationship and so are afraid or unwilling or unable to offer their own expectations/definitions for fear that they would be seen as fake or unreal. So again, ships passing in the night that may otherwise be well matched but held back by their inability to self define what they are looking for.

I do believe that d/s is d/s and by definition it is a very conditional relationship. But there is no reason people can not take from the d/s dynamic what they need and leave the rest, and not call it anything but a viable relationship that works for them, and leave it at that.

Perhaps that is the answer, at least I think so.



bastardandthewen -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/13/2007 11:11:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone
It's interesting that you say that. I would guess that  in fact a good portion of people here who are looking for a long term d/s relationship, ARE in fact looking for what you are talking about...


Could be - but as I stated, when I was looking,  my own experience was that such people were few and far between, while there was an abundance of people on either extreme end of the spectrum.



SlyStone -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/14/2007 5:54:00 AM)


You may be right, it just might be that there aren't many people looking for it, or it may be that those that are, do not no where or how to look. I  really don't know the answer.

The problem might be that one's only online options are to either search a vanilla site or a kink site for a partner, so of course the so called extremes become the norm.

While I think most people do in fact lean towards the middle of the spectrum of d/s vs vanilla, it is never easy to define the middle ground, and if you are looking for something you do need to define it, or you end up fumbling in the dark.




thetammyjo -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/14/2007 6:25:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

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.



Isn't that what we are talking about here?. The d/s relationship leaves little room for compromise. In many ways it is what it is and when it is gone it is gone. When one person is no longer willing or able to take the authority or one person is no longer willing to submit the authority it is over. You can talk about adjusting it and transferring less or more power etc, but in the end if the power exchange is gone the d/s relationship is over.

But isn't it that uncompromising conditionality that is so difficult to sustain over the long term? I mean people do change and needs do change and I think as we grow older our need for authority and our need to give up that authority may change. And for one partner that may mean the loss of the d/s and for another it may mean a change in the d/s dynamic.




What do you think compromising is?

People change, yes, and a realistic relationship will not only expect that but in my opinion it will encourage healthy growth and change.

This does not need to affect your authority structures at all becuase you will have considered these changes happening, will not be surprised by them, and will adapt to them.

Fox and I have both changed, we talked about this last night at our bedtime ritual. Yet we feel more deeply connected as an owner and slave then we did before. We also feel more comfortable and more ourselves as we've discovered and grown in different ways. We've figured out what is truly important and we both support the system we have created.



Wildfleurs -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/14/2007 6:51:15 AM)

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?


To me a d/s relationship is one where control and decision making authority is given to another person (thats the most concise simplest definition I can give).  I think its certainly viable long term, I've been with my owner for nine years.

C~



Wildfleurs -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/14/2007 6:55:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

The question is, I think, can you determine the level of authority you are willing to give up in a given d/s relationship before you enter into it, or is this something that evolves over time?

And if  it is something that evolves over time, than are people  seeking to enter into long term relationships in which a key component is in many ways an unknown, which would seem to put the odds against success?



I should have read farther into the thread instead of answering the original question that seems to have been answered sufficiently.  For me it was something that evolved over time and has been determined by a couple of main things 1) the dynamic that just occurs between my owner and I without much thought (i.e. the way we by default relate) and 2) the type of dynamic that we desired.  But without us naturally relating a certain way I don't think that the d/s dynamic is really sustainable.  I don't think it puts the odds against success if you are willing to be flexible and see where things go, instead of trying to determine where the relationship must positively go.

C~



Shylahgirl -> RE: Defining The d/s Relationship (3/14/2007 8:06:48 AM)

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?


My definition of a D/s relationship is a relationship based on a power exchange that both parties have agreed to and are happy with. It is based on forms of respect on both sides and both sides recive joy from the relationship. BDSM play is not a requierment, I know of Dom./ sub cuples  who only want the power exchange.

The power exchange is what makes the D/s relationship specail, and it it also what makes it one of the most dificult relationship to make work long term. But it can be done when all parties involved have a ferm grasp on what they are doing and know what they want out of a realtionship.

It is very possable to have a long term D/s relationship, if one) the Dom/Domme/Master/Mistress has all their shit under controle (you cant controle someone esles shit till you can controle your own. Two) the Sub/slave know that this is what they want and is willing at some point to fully give them selves to the Dom and the relatrionship. The relationship must be buit on trust and mutual respect for each other as humanbeings.

Shylah



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625