RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (Full Version)

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



Message

Grlwithboy -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 12:07:58 AM)

Are you not emotionally tied by a sense of responsibility?
Are you not emotionally tied by what you said you were going to do and provide?
Are you not emotionally  tied by the thing you profess to be, by actually knowing that you *need* to own?

I don't know about anyone else, but I've has nights of no sleep and plenty of long dark teatimes trying to decide and do things that are objectively right by the person who has put his life in my hands. If I were in love with him, I'd be more likely to fall back on that, less likely to think about what the right thing to do is and more likely to do the thing that enmeshes us more. I don't think anyone is above that who's in a romantic relationship.

This may be part of the reason M/s relationships have the short shelf life that you've observed, but I'm not certain if that's true, it's just a hunch. Maybe this is a slightly gendered perspective, as I still think that women are sold the notion that romance is the only key to fulfillment more hard-core - and thus achieving romantic pairing that may or may not be otherwise functional feels like less of a push to me than owning a living breathing thinking human property for whom I must make rational and level-headed choices. M/s without romantic enmeshment is further along the edges of my confort zones, and therefore much harder for me.

For me, I'm happy to reiterate.






HypnoticDan -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 1:14:01 AM)

I see the act of being dominant to my partner as something I do to show my affection for my partner. I'm not there to satisfy only my kink. I have a kink and I seek a girl with complimentary kink so that everybody's happy. IMHO that's one of the cornerstones of a good relationship.

...but it's just the cornerstone. That incredibly deep level of mutual understanding and psychic oneness that only comes through when it's real love... that's the something much bigger and I can't imagine going my whole life without it.



Gheaust -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 1:19:48 AM)

It is what is called the Chinese obligation.

When you save a cat - you are responsible for it.  Bound by it.  To it.
So is it with love, with Dominance.

Of the two - subs are freer.



SimplyMichael -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 7:08:01 AM)

quote:

I don't know about anyone else, but I've has nights of no sleep and plenty of long dark teatimes trying to decide and do things that are objectively right by the person who has put his life in my hands. If I were in love with him, I'd be more likely to fall back on that, less likely to think about what the right thing to do is and more likely to do the thing that enmeshes us more. I don't think anyone is above that who's in a romantic relationship.


Not quite sure what you are saying here.  That  you make more objective decisions for someone you are not in love with and the decisions are less objective and more clingy with one you are in love with?  One would hope you would make good decisions for both of you in either case.

quote:

This may be part of the reason M/s relationships have the short shelf life that you've observed, but I'm not certain if that's true, it's just a hunch


Define what "this" is and when you say you are not sure it is true are you referring to my reason or yours?

quote:

M/s without romantic enmeshment is further along the edges of my comfort zones, and therefore much harder for me.


If you can't make good rational decisions for your partner because you are clouded by love then you are somewhere in the same boat as I.   Being able to be in love AND make good decisions IS hard because of the complications you mention.  In other words, it requires more skills to do well.




TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 9:23:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael
I think it takes extra skill.


Interesting...  and in reading some of your other replies, I think I am starting to see what you are saying.

quote:

 
The question is did you love them?  One sided love is easy, loving back is harder.
 

Oh yes. I loved her, she loved me.  The love was, in fact, what made it not work for me.  Her submission was based on it, and it left me feeling like she was serving her love, and not me, if that makes any sense.  I strive to be a leader, to be followed because of the strength of my ideas and character, not because I am good in bed (though that is one of the things I strive to be loved for.)

quote:

I have seen a few where the submissive truly served to serve and could have served anyone she wanted but chose to serve in a platonic capacity.  Frankly, I was more impressed with her submission than his dominance.


And I get a very similar feeling when I see love based M/s relationships.  I think that the real work to be done is in keeping your slave in love, not in staying Dominant to her.

quote:


Again, this falls back to ability, I think the ability to manage and dominate someone in that capacity requires a great deal of understanding of motivations, communication, etc, but that without the romantic love it is still easier because one is not emotionally tied to the person providing service.


How is keeping someone submissive without the binds that are inherent in love easier than doing so without such an advantage???  I will agree with one of your later points that love can cloud the decision process, making that aspect harder, but love also provides a huge cushion for when you make the wrong choice.  Romantic love makes many aspects of a M/s relationship easy, and I think the advantages romantic love give the dominant far outweigh any clouding of decisions.

I think, in many ways, those who dominate with romantic love don't actually need to be very well skilled in the D/s department.  Pick the right woman, keep the romantic love strong, and watch her submit to your every whim...no need to analyze her submissive nature, no need to bring that out, no need to push her submissive buttons, when just keeping her in love will keep her submissive.

Taggard



SimplyMichael -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 10:17:46 AM)

Taggard,

quote:

Her submission was based on it, and it left me feeling like she was serving her love, and not me, if that makes any sense. 


Makes complete sense, she was submitting to get love rather than loving to submit, again, that is the bdsm emotional equivalent of sleeping with someone to feel love, it is empty and not a mature love/submission.

quote:

  I strive to be a leader, to be followed because of the strength of my ideas and character


A noble goal and I get what you are trying to say, you want to evoke someone's submission because of the man you have made yourself into rather than because you are "hot" or some other vanilla quality.

quote:

How is keeping someone submissive without the binds that are inherent in love easier than doing so without such an advantage??? 


If one has chosen someone to serve you based strictly on their ability to serve, decisions are less clouded, more clear cut and thus easier.  One sided love is easy to manipulate but if you love them back it becomes a two edge sword and your concern for the relationship as a whole comes into play and makes the whole dynamic more difficult.

quote:

  I think, in many ways, those who dominate with romantic love don't actually need to be very well skilled in the D/s department.  Pick the right woman, keep the romantic love strong, and watch her submit to your every whim...no need to analyze her submissive nature, no need to bring that out, no need to push her submissive buttons, when just keeping her in love will keep her submissive.


Okay, as if I haven't pissed enough people off already, this is going to send them through the roof.  The sort of submission that is attained by leveraging love as you say above isn't very deep.  Look at the threads here full of "I won't do this or that" or "I would of course do anything but I only say that because I know he won't ask that of me".  Dominating someone by "forcing" them to cum, or do fun bdsm scenes, etc. isn't all that demanding and I agree with your point.  However, that isn't the sort of dominance I am speaking of.  I am talking of the sort of dominance that you are speaking of for property.  Pushing past someone's boundaries, making them do things they truly do NOT want to do or really find no pleasure (directly but especially indirectly) or in fact deeply hate doing is where serious dominating begins.   Although one could also argue that great dominance would be taking something someone hates doing, and turning that into something they crave.

Again, part of the problem of arguing this is I have never seen you interact with a partner and you haven't seen me with mine.  I know people who talk about being the most dominant of men with the slaviest slave and all I see are two actors, bad ones at that, and often others who don't thump their chest amaze me with the depth of their actions, I would bet you fall under the latter rather than the former.



Grlwithboy -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 10:42:16 AM)

Taggard essentially articulated what I meant better. I'll go even shorter on it - the latitude for me to fuck up is much greater when I'm in love with someone and they with me. It doesn't take as long for me to burn through the leeway or vice-versa when that's not present.

I can see where you might arrive at the notion that doing non romantic M/s is easier if you equate clear and direct and less clouded with being easier necessarily. I would argue that the challenge is different. We all have an internal road map for romantic relationships, when you are relating intensely and often sexually to another person without that you are kind of a cartographer.




TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 10:58:09 AM)

quote:

One sided love is easy to manipulate but if you love them back it becomes a two edge sword and your concern for the relationship as a whole comes into play and makes the whole dynamic more difficult.


Ok, now I think we really are on the same page.  I cannot argue with this at all, having indeed lived that kind of relationship.  I think, perhaps, my issue comes with the idea that the difficulties inherent in maintaining a D/s relationship with romantic love are somehow more imposing than trying to maintain a D/s relationship with a platonic love.  Both are difficult to do well.  Both have challenges that are unique to that type of relationship.  Both have rewards and benefits that the other does not.  Having had both, I can tell you which I enjoy more, even which I was more successful at, but I don't think I would describe one as more difficult.  However, I can certainly see your point-of-view on this.

quote:

The sort of submission that is attained by leveraging love as you say above isn't very deep.  Look at the threads here full of "I won't do this or that" or "I would of course do anything but I only say that because I know he won't ask that of me".


I think we are in complete agreement on this point.


quote:

Pushing past someone's boundaries, making them do things they truly do NOT want to do or really find no pleasure (directly but especially indirectly) or in fact deeply hate doing is where serious dominating begins.


Again, I think we are very close to agreement here as well.  I fully understand and appreciate your point that being in love with someone and pushing them through the tears (and screams) is extremely difficult, and requires an amazing amount of skill.  What I think, perhaps, you are not considering is that it takes an equal amout (yet quite different in type) of skill to get someone who isn't in love with you to even put themselves in a position to be pushed at all!  Without the bonds of love, it is rather easy to push someone in ways that allow them to say "fuck this, I don't love you. I am outta here!"


quote:

I know people who talk about being the most dominant of men with the slaviest slave and all I see are two actors, bad ones at that, and often others who don't thump their chest amaze me with the depth of their actions, I would bet you fall under the latter rather than the former.


I thank you for the compliment, and I have a feeling you can amaze a room as well.  I came into this discussion expecting to bang heads with you, but I think I would rather enjoy buying you a drink instead.  You seem rather active in the community...are you going to Black Rose???

Taggard



SimplyMichael -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 11:09:26 AM)

Taggard,

I am active in Sacramento and show up once in a while in SF, DC is a bit of a drive!  As for banging heads, you have had a civil discussion with me and so I have returned that in kind.  I know I come across as an arrogant ass and often AM an arrogant ass but as people get to know me, they often are surprised to find I can actually almost be a decent human being.

As for the ultimate fringe of this discussion, talking about nearly perfect relationships, I am not sure I could pin down an exact dividing line.  In reality though I don't think the distinction is that fine and the dividing line becomes quite large and distinct when you start dealing with real world relationships.  And again, I am not saying someone with far better skills than I (since again, what I am arguing for is something I HOPE to attain, not some hill I am sitting on passing judgement) might choose to DO something "less" but that as goals, a D/s relationship based on love at any given level of submission requires more skill than a relationship based solely on D/s.



ECF -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 1:34:22 PM)

Let me tell you gentlemen, from a "newbie's" perspective, this has been an informative debate between the two of you, and similar to what I have often done in the world of academics when listening to professors and teaching assistants debate over topics, I've enjoyed sitting in the back with my feet up on the table and hearing it go back and forth.  Psychology and philosophy both interest me and I think this conversation has included enough hints of both that I've been checking up on it at least twice a day.  I look forward to living in an area of the world where there actually is an active local community where I can find for myself people to talk to about these sorts of topics.

Thanks to both of you for keeping it interesting, informative, and most of all civil.



KnightofMists -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 9:19:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

We are, or at least I am, talking about two skill sets, the skill to have a healthy loving relationship and the skill to have a D/s relationship.  Many have one or the other, plenty have a blend of both, very few have both in abundance.  Look at the boards here, not a perfect sample but in my experience and that of many others, the makeup of the boards here is if anything over represented with couples and yet couples are still far less common than singles.  Of those couples, how many are more than a couple of years old?  My friends who are competing in the Master/slave competition have been together three/four years and are considered an "old" couple by many.  Clearly doing a D/s relationship of any sort isn't easy.


I agree that there seems to be few couples that last in the D/s structure for any length of time.  However, I am not so sure that it is a fair comparison to be made to so-called vanilla world.  Because this lifestyle is shall we say.. in the closet of society.  Many don't actually come to it to later in life.  Many actually come out of failed vanilla relationships that have last years.  They then come into this lifestyle and take time to learn about and hopefully meet someone.  Therefore it's not surprizing to see some that has only 3-5 years as a relationship being consider elder relationships.  It has been my experience that most people come into this lifestyle as singles later in life as compared to sooner.  I believe that as we come out of the closet so to speak, we might see the make of the community become more inline with the rest of society.

quote:


Back to the cooking analogy, while I am sure there are chefs somewhere making burgers who could work at Chez Panisse, there aren't many and they CHOSE to work doing burgers even though they could do more advanced/complicated food, probably after having done it and decided it wasn't for them.  I am sure if you wanted to order a burger at Chez Panisse you couldn't get one but only because they have a fixed menu, but any other fancy restaurant could fix an amazing burger, however, take your average burger flipper and they would be lost with a whole duck, would have no idea how to make a reduction, etc.


I agree... people will only succeed to the level of their skill plus effort and luck of course.

quote:


D/s requires a lot of relationship skills, love requires a lot of vulnerability, doing both requires a lot of skill, more than doing either one by themselves.  So if you find it easy KoM, my hat is off to you.  I find it hard as hell and hope I have what it takes to pull it off as the woman I am now with is amazing, combining the best of the women I learned on and I hope to hell to pull it off and to be looking into her eyes many many moons from now, blissfully in love with my slave.


You know.. when I first began my relationship with Alandra.. it wasn't so easy.  Not that we struggled... it actually went very smoothly and it was great.  But.. you start a relationship in essense without a road map and regardless how much you thing you know your partner... believe you know them alot more after 5,10,15,20 years.. and I am still learning.  But.. it does get easier.  Compared to the first 5 plus years.. today is easy.  I suppose in another 20 years.. I will say today was hard in comparision of what it become.

When I learned to add.. shit it was hard.... but I got it... then they wanted me to do it in my head and I had to put my socks on... shit... that was hard.

What I am saying... each challenge is hard in some way... but if it wasn't.. it wouldn't be a challenge.  But.. because I have an aptitude for Math.. it was easy.. even thou the challenges was hard along the way.

Frankly.. I think you are going to do well... my instincts tell me this for one reason.... You are capable to change what is wrong.. even if it's YOU!  and lot of times(say about 50% of the time).. it is us (the Dominant) that needs to do the changing. 

side note... because I have two.. I reduced the times to change to 33.3333%  *G*  Got to love math.



KnightofMists -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 9:39:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty
quote:

 
The question is did you love them?  One sided love is easy, loving back is harder.
 

Oh yes. I loved her, she loved me.  The love was, in fact, what made it not work for me.  Her submission was based on it, and it left me feeling like she was serving her love, and not me, if that makes any sense.  I strive to be a leader, to be followed because of the strength of my ideas and character, not because I am good in bed (though that is one of the things I strive to be loved for.)



If I understand correctly... You are saying she Loved the relationship and what it gave her.  But actually Loving you for the person you are was not really a consideration.  Your actions only served her to love the relationship even more.  Instead of seeing your actions as examples and/or demonstration of your character.

Being Loved for Who we are.. in my opinion ... is much richer than being Loved for What we do.



KnightofMists -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 9:46:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty

quote:

I have seen a few where the submissive truly served to serve and could have served anyone she wanted but chose to serve in a platonic capacity.  Frankly, I was more impressed with her submission than his dominance.


And I get a very similar feeling when I see love based M/s relationships.  I think that the real work to be done is in keeping your slave in love, not in staying Dominant to her.



I believe this is dependent on what they actually Love

If you are Loved for Who you are.. then you are freed to BE who you are.  And the key is that one's partner has a Honest perception of Who you are.  If they do.. then one can focus on Being oneself.. if they don't.. rocky roads ahead when perception changes.

If you are Loved for What you do. then.. you need to keep Doing it to keep that Love.. and hopefully they don't change what they want... because if they do.. then rocky roads ahead..becuase you need to change your actions to continue to meet their Love.

I perform the former than the latter.  As a Dominant.. I find myself much happier to be Just Me.  I have made every every to show anyone that comes close to me exactly who ME is!



KnightofMists -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 9:54:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty

quote:

Pushing past someone's boundaries, making them do things they truly do NOT want to do or really find no pleasure (directly but especially indirectly) or in fact deeply hate doing is where serious dominating begins.


Again, I think we are very close to agreement here as well.  I fully understand and appreciate your point that being in love with someone and pushing them through the tears (and screams) is extremely difficult, and requires an amazing amount of skill.  What I think, perhaps, you are not considering is that it takes an equal amout (yet quite different in type) of skill to get someone who isn't in love with you to even put themselves in a position to be pushed at all!  Without the bonds of love, it is rather easy to push someone in ways that allow them to say "fuck this, I don't love you. I am outta here!"



I completely agree with this..  which is why I said...

quote:

  It's not a question of having greater skills .. maybe just different skill sets.


However.. becuase of  our own personal preferences... we might see our own preference to requiring greater skills and not just different skills.  It's a subtle way to beat our own chest.



SirButchTX -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/10/2007 11:18:25 PM)

While it's not out of the question for me to have a loving/romantic relationship with a sub, it's not something I actively seek. In order for D/s to be successful in a relationship, a Top/Dom/Master has to be able to distance him/her self from their bottom/sub/slave. This is very difficult in a romantic relationship as I've found out thru trial and error. It can be done, and I've managed to do so successfully once. So it's possible, probable, and do-able if you are willing to suffer. Yes, I said suffer...when you must punish someone you love, or you want to do a particularly sadistic scene with that same person, you will suffer until you can block that part of the relationship away for the time being in order to proceed with what must or will be done.

SirButch.



KnightofMists -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/11/2007 6:41:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirButchTX

So it's possible, probable, and do-able if you are willing to suffer. Yes, I said suffer...when you must punish someone you love, or you want to do a particularly sadistic scene with that same person, you will suffer until you can block that part of the relationship away for the time being in order to proceed with what must or will be done.



lol.. well... I would say that anyone that has watched me play my girls wouldn't say that I was suffering...

Well ok.. I suppose after I get the odd elbow to the side, kick to the legs, knee to the groin, punch to the chin.. I might be suffering... but then those kind of bumps and bruises are not much different than a good hockey game.

Frankly... if  person is going to suffer in the manner you suggest.... I would say take up bowling.

Editted to add:

If a person feels and thinks Punishment is the RIGHT thing to do... then there shouldn't be any suffering!

If the people involved are gaining enjoyment for the BDSM play... then there shouldn't be any suffering!

Frankly.. in my opinion... if your suffering... your doing something wrong... and "You" need to change something!  and it's not with the other partner(s)  it's within oneself.



Faramir -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/11/2007 7:04:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirButchTX
In order for D/s to be successful in a relationship, a Top/Dom/Master has to be able to distance him/her self from their bottom/sub/slave.


Bullshit.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/11/2007 8:06:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists
Frankly.. in my opinion... if your suffering... your doing something wrong... and "You" need to change something!  and it's not with the other partner(s)  it's within oneself.


I am not sure change is always possible, and I am sure that, at least for me, change was not what I wanted.  I am one of those who does "suffer" when I play hard with those for whom  I feel romantic love.  The tears and the flowers just don't mix for me.  I want to have someone with whom I feel protective and keep from hurt...and I want someone whos tears I can use as lubricant while I ass fuck her.  I just don't want them to be the same person.

I like having the distinction in my life...and I have found my romantic partner (and she likes that other part of me as well, has a dark side of her own, and the two of us make a great ass fucking team!).  I really don't need to change it to be happy...

Taggard



Grlwithboy -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/11/2007 9:12:26 AM)

It's not suffering for me, it's just feels incredibly false for me to ping pong back between "I own you, as I own my car, toaster, and whip" and "I lurrrrve you." For some people this may integrate fine, but we do a lot of degradation, denial, and VA. Softening it with a "there there, I don't *really* mean it when I call you a cunt:" takes away the edge completely for me - fine with some people, but not the goal here and not what is needed by my slave.





TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Male Dominants: Love & Romance (7/11/2007 9:44:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy
For some people this may integrate fine, but we do a lot of degradation, denial, and VA.


I totally get your point as well.  Care to educate me as to what VA stands for?  I love learning new kinks!

Taggard



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125