connections

connections (Full Version)

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

Message

gracieamelia -> connections (10/27/2007 6:25:04 PM)
AAkasha wrote: Is it possible to have a fairly deep, meaningful, passionate connection with someone and not have romance come along and fuck it up? So my questions: 1. why cannot both of these entities co-exist? 2. do we emotionally try to detach these entities, so that we are not emotionally hurt? 3. is romance, love? 4. some want romance and love first, while others say romance and love messes up a relationship.............. or does romance and love mess up a deep passionate connection that might not ever flourish to a deep connecting relationship? It seems there is an equal amount of D and s types who connect with love as a building block and those who connect with no love and romance involved. Any answers? Any thoughts? Maybe I am asking the same thing she is. I"m not sure.

sweetnurseBBW -> RE: connections (10/27/2007 9:08:13 PM)
Not everyone wants or needs romance and love in their relationship. It depends on the type of relationship and the goal of the relationship. It just comes down to those involved and what each seeks in their relationship and what works.

RosesHaveThorns -> RE: connections (10/27/2007 9:20:36 PM)
quote: 1. why cannot both of these entities co-exist? I haven't read the original yet, but I think one reason to focus on connection without romance is that many people have romance within said connection. Perhaps a romanceless connection is not the norm, therefore was brought up? As for the rest, I cannot say anything but repeat that defintions vary from person to person.

SixFootMaster -> RE: connections (10/27/2007 9:30:53 PM)
Not to mention that what constitutes romance is entirely dependant on the individual. Some girls find the idea of being shackled, chained and hobbled as much of the time as possible, is romantic.

Michaelsangel -> RE: connections (10/27/2007 9:31:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sweetnurseBBW Not everyone wants or needs romance and love in their relationship. It depends on the type of relationship and the goal of the relationship. It just comes down to those involved and what each seeks in their relationship and what works. This is so true. Not everyone wants or needs romance or love in their respective relationship in order to find satisfaction within it. However, a deep, passionate connection can co-exist within a relationship. imho it just takes time, patience and above all trust. Respectfully, Michaelsangel

ownedgirlie -> RE: connections (10/27/2007 10:53:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gracieamelia AAkasha wrote: Is it possible to have a fairly deep, meaningful, passionate connection with someone and not have romance come along and fuck it up? So my questions: 1. why cannot both of these entities co-exist? 2. do we emotionally try to detach these entities, so that we are not emotionally hurt? 3. is romance, love? 4. some want romance and love first, while others say romance and love messes up a relationship.............. or does romance and love mess up a deep passionate connection that might not ever flourish to a deep connecting relationship? It seems there is an equal amount of D and s types who connect with love as a building block and those who connect with no love and romance involved. Any answers? Any thoughts? Maybe I am asking the same thing she is. I"m not sure. I'm not sure why passion, love and deep connections automatically equal romantic. Master and I are not romantic - he is owner and I am property. But there is definitely love there, and passion abound. The connection is the greatest I've ever had. But that doesn't mean candlelight dinners, walks holding hands into the sunset, feeding each other strawberries dipped in champagne, or snuggles by the fireplace. That just not who we are. But our dynamic is an amazing and passionate love affair for sure. So to answer AAkasha, Definitely yes, it is possible!

eyesopened -> RE: connections (10/28/2007 4:44:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster Not to mention that what constitutes romance is entirely dependant on the individual. Some girls find the idea of being shackled, chained and hobbled as much of the time as possible, is romantic. i have discovered i could easily be happy with BDSM without romance but not romance without BDSM. A leash is one of the clearest ways to say "I want you close to me" That i have found both makes me one of the luckiest women on the planet.

CrazyC -> RE: connections (10/28/2007 5:25:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gracieamelia AAkasha wrote: Is it possible to have a fairly deep, meaningful, passionate connection with someone and not have romance come along and fuck it up? So my questions: 1. why cannot both of these entities co-exist? They can. But since each person is diffirent, we also have diffrent feeling going into a relationship. 2. do we emotionally try to detach these entities, so that we are not emotionally hurt? It really depends. Maybe we are just wanting a fuck buddy....then you might not want any emotinal attachment. I know personally when there are no attachments it is to protect myself from the pain. 3. is romance, love? No, romance could be infatuation, lust, ect. I always concider love should be reserved for those relationship that aren't just based on feelings of happiness. But i can have love and no romance. 4. some want romance and love first, while others say romance and love messes up a relationship.............. or does romance and love mess up a deep passionate connection that might not ever flourish to a deep connecting relationship? I think there is a confusion of love and lust/ infatuation. I remember reading somewhere that America uses the word love too freely and so it has lost some its deep felt meaning. If your relationship is based on infatuation/ love (that ooey gooey feeling), then yes that stuff can ruine a relationship when life needs to get back to reality. Actually, at this moment, I am in a relationship were there are no gooey feelings. I love him, but i don't melt when he steps in a room. I love him because i know he cares for me more then i can understand. And there are many times, I just want to roll my eyes. I don't feel like there is any romance, but we have an understanding that we are there for each other no matter what and that is where the love stems from. I can't speak for him, so he might actually think there is romance. lol But i know for me, I am happy with a very grounded love.

BRNaughtyAngel -> RE: connections (10/28/2007 11:43:17 AM)
As others have stated, I think you'd need to define romance..... and you can't because it means something different to everyone. I thought I wanted romance, but after reading so many great threads here in the last year on this and related subjects, I realized that it's not really romance I want and need, but intimacy. [sm=smile.gif]

ownedgirlie -> RE: connections (10/28/2007 2:27:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BRNaughtyAngel I thought I wanted romance, but after reading so many great threads here in the last year on this and related subjects, I realized that it's not really romance I want and need, but intimacy. [sm=smile.gif] Yes!! That was exactly what I discovered for myself, too. Romance is a facad to me, without the intimacy behind it. With intimacy, romance shows up on its own in its own surprising and uncontrived ways.

gracieamelia -> RE: connections (10/28/2007 6:43:43 PM)
thank you for your many thoughts.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125