RE: M/s but not forever

RE: M/s but not forever (Full Version)

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

Message

LadiesBladewing -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/28/2006 7:17:56 PM)
Absolutely. M/s doesn't imply a time limit. It can be M/s for a day, or M/s for a lifetime, depending on what the individuals involved are working towards. It is a form of elitism and shows a great measure of hubris to decide that because the time-frame that one individual prefers isn't the same as another individual uses to define his or her relationship, that that relationship is somehow less valid, or has less "right" to use certain terms to define the relationship. If the individuals involved have agreed that their relationship is M/s, and the relationship meets the terms that both have defined as fitting that relationship, it is as much M/s as anyone else's M/s relationship, regardless of the differences in timing or duties or any other agreed-upon terms. Lady Zephyr quote: ORIGINAL: kisshou Would you consider it to be a Master/slave relationship if the Master told the slave up front that it will not be forever?

LadiesBladewing -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/28/2006 7:34:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble If I knew up front, that no matter what sort of service I provided, it was not going to be good enough to be kept, I would not allow myself to get into a situation that has no where to go. I would be willing to bottom and retain my own power, however. I would be willing to submit for a temporary period of time, but I could not be enslaved with the knowledge in my head that it could never last. Celeste Why is there the implication that the contract would end because the individual in question "wasn't good enough"? We often take servants on a limited contract, because they want to learn, and we want to teach, but both parties know that there are other things going on in our lives that mean that, after a given amount of time, the contract will end. It has nothing to do with being "good enough"... we haven't had a servant yet who was dedicated to his or her service that wasn't "good enough". [This next section doesn't deal with Celeste's post, but with what I've read up until this point on this thread, and on other similar discussions over the years.] This may peeve some people for me to say, but the other issue that I see creeping up here is the whole idea that this is some kind of romantic endeavor, and in order to be "real" there has to be that romantic "happily ever after" thing. M/s can exist with or without romance, and it can exist for both short-term and long-term relationships. It can exist, and exist strongly, anywhere that the submissive respects the owner and obeys him or her, and it can exist anywhere that the owner is dedicated to training, guiding, and commanding a servant and is honorable enough to warrant obedience and respect. Romance is a whole 'nother bag of worms, and has nothing to do with whether a relationship is M/s or not -- in fact, I've seen plenty of relationships that called themselves M/s, but the individuals involved would never survive under the training that we provide, because, in our eyes, the owner made no effort to guide, direct, train, or command his or her servant... in particular because he or she didn't want to bear the brunt of being "disliked" by his or her romantic partner... and the servant walked all over the dominant, because the servant wasn't a "slave", he or she was a mate/spouse/lover. I've seen a lot more successful short-term training enslavements than I've seen romantic enslavements. M/s is M/s... it isn't romance. Romance is romance. It may include M/s or not, but it takes a strong owner and a truly dedicated servant to not get lost in the romance and maintain the M/s portion of the relationship. I've seen a few folks who have made it work... but for most... shrugs Lady Zephyr

Reasonable -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/28/2006 7:46:04 PM)
Nodding at this part......... quote: but the other issue that I see creeping up here is the whole idea that this is some kind of romantic endeavor, and in order to be "real" there has to be that romantic "happily ever after" thing. M/s can exist with or without romance, and it can exist for both short-term and long-term relationships. It can exist, and exist strongly, anywhere that the submissive respects the owner and obeys him or her, and it can exist anywhere that the owner is dedicated to training, guiding, and commanding a servant and is honorable enough to warrant obedience and respect. Romance is a whole 'nother bag of worms, and has nothing to do with whether a relationship is M/s or not -- in fact, I've seen plenty of relationships that called themselves M/s, but the individuals involved would never survive under the training that we provide, because, in our eyes, the owner made no effort to guide, direct, train, or command his or her servant... in particular because he or she didn't want to bear the brunt of being "disliked" by his or her romantic partner... and the servant walked all over the dominant, because the servant wasn't a "slave", he or she was a mate/spouse/lover. I've seen a lot more successful short-term training enslavements than I've seen romantic enslavements. The "love" aspect may have a certain Quixotic appeal,but I really see no place for it in a more heavily structured and intense M/s relationship. I feel that there is a multi facted way that an Owner needs to look at a slave. 1. As a person,who has at least minimal needs to be met. 2. As an object,something to be made use of. 3. And as a responsibility-that requires upkeep and management. But as a lover, a girl friend,or a spouse? No,not in my world. In many cases,when a romantic aspect is allowed- and the slaves comes to a reactance period-there will be an instinct to use this attachment as a lever. If a certain length of term is set- then the slave needs to be appraised in advance,and what the parting provisons are to be. There is a renewal clause-those terms,and what is expected to EARN them ,are also stipulated. Does this sound cold and calculated,even businesslike? That would be because slavery was ESTABLISHED as a labor industry.

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/28/2006 8:06:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kisshou Would you consider it to be a Master/slave relationship if the Master told the slave up front that it will not be forever? It sounds like the men who say "I'm not looking for a serious relationship, and I'm not interested in marriage, but.... I understand that nothing comes with guarantees, but if I were a slave looking for a committed M/s relationship, I would take his word "not forever" as meaning he is unavailable for commitment; if he specified the amount of time for which it would be for, I would take it or leave it as it suits me. If someone shows up and wants to be my slave for the next 25-35 years, and released thereafter, I'd take him. M

RiotGirl -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/28/2006 8:57:49 PM)
quote: Would you consider it to be a Master/slave relationship if the Master told the slave up front that it will not be forever? Well long before i met Himself, i had this pretty little notion that M/s relationships and even D/s relationships were a no strings attached sort of thing. No emotions. Like its not a relationship. You just "do" i suppose. No bond, no relationship, no emotions. So back in the day and i'd prolly even consider it if something happened between Himself and me.. sure. i'd take it for the experience. Could be intersting, could be eye opening, could be another perspective to gain. A new experience. Plus life's alot easier with out emotions or a bond. Much easier. and of course, nothing is forever save death. Life is always moving, rotating, changing Edited to add - i've seemed to have read the question wrong. Would i consider it an M/s relationship? Why wouldnt i? To quote some old saying.. "whats love got to do with it?" Like Ladie Zephyr said, romance is romance, M/s is M/s neither or make the other. You can have romance with out M/s or with M/s and you can have M/s with romance and with out romance. M/s doesnt equal love. It can for some. But it doesnt have to, to qualify. i'm sure there is something similiar to equate it too....

Proprietrix -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/28/2006 9:04:16 PM)
I absolutely agree with LadiesBladewing on this issue. I had a past relationship which was based fully and completely on temporary status. She was coming from a bad relationship. She needed time to recoup, within the walls of the lifestyle, and to be "re-trained" power exchange, relearn protocol, service, etc.... We both knew up front it was a temporary status. Part of the end of her service to me was our search together for a new owner for her. She was straight, and had a strong desire for age regression. When we set out to find her a new owner, we were looking for a male Dominant who would be willing to be "Daddy-ish" at times. The agreement worked out very well. She was given the opportunity to recover from a bad relationship without ever having to give up her calling. She learned a lot. I learned some things by having her for the short time I did. She lives with her new Master now and is very happy. I am happy. It's all good. :)

ladyangel -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/28/2006 9:05:45 PM)
How long is "forever"? I remember walking down the aisle of the courtroom when I married My first husband. I was telling Myself "I'll just do this for awhile until something better comes along.". Well, 6 years later, something better came along---freedom from him. yet, I took vows that the union would be "forever". Anyhow---like another poster said- if you go into something knowing it's not for the long haul, it wont be. You will know that it's NOT through thick and thin. The last serious M/s relationship I was in, I knew it wasn't going to be forever. There were too many issues involved. Yet I still entered into the relationship, whole heartedly, and gung ho. I made no future plans, no remarks or comments about future activities, etc. I knew it was only going to run it's course and then be done. So, why did I do it anyhow? Why would I put Myself and the slave through the heartache, work, grief, emotional stresses of having the relationship KNOWING fully that it was only temporary?? Because I would rather live and love in the moment, and enjoy what the moments bring Me, as opposed to having NEVER had those experiences and moments. I am the product of everything I have learned, experienced, felt, discovered, etc. And, even those fleeting, fly-by-night, short term forever relationships have given Me information to go through the rest of life with. I am a better person, and know Myself better, having had those relationships. Lady Angel

akisha -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/28/2006 9:40:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kisshou Would you consider it to be a Master/slave relationship if the Master told the slave up front that it will not be forever? Certainly, why not? there could be a specific reason why. If you agreed to collar for a year for training for instance.There would be nothing wrong with that. Maybe He's an expert in a type of play you really want to experience. Not all relationships are based on love or a view on forever. We do different things for different reasons to attain a goal we wish to achieve. I would like a long term commited relationship but hey, each relationship is a learning experience. I take from it what i can and move on when it ends. I may very well be jaded here i'll admit. my mother has been married 3 times and my father had 3 wives and 5 common-law wives. Longevity was not exactly the norm in my parental role models. Daddy says you should trade in your spouse every 7 years lol. Personally i don't agree but it really makes you realize that nothing lasts forever. There is nothing wrong with taking a time limit collar if you know why you are doing it. Personally it doesn't mean i'd try less to be the best i could be. just my two bits

ownedgirlie -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/28/2006 9:40:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadiesBladewing M/s is M/s... it isn't romance. Romance is romance. It may include M/s or not, but it takes a strong owner and a truly dedicated servant to not get lost in the romance and maintain the M/s portion of the relationship. I've seen a few folks who have made it work... but for most... shrugs Lady Zephyr I wholeheartedly agree. There is nothing romantic about my service to my Master, and his ownership of me. I love him, and I know he loves me in return, but I was serving him and devoted to him before love ever entered into it. I work to please him, and he enjoys taking and using what is his, however he wishes. Having said that, we both invested a lot of effort in this M/s relationship - his effort was in teaching me the things he wanted me to know and understand, and my effort was in learning them, and in becoming a happy, do-anything-for-him slave. I could not have made it to this point - no limits, no entitlement, no hesitation - without him taking everything that is me. If he were to have taken all of me, used it, and discarded it, I would very likely end up an empty shell somewhere. He owns my essence. That is not something to be taken lightly. That goes beyond basic servantry. That means he exists in my core, and that I draw from him daily. The depth of my bond and connection to him is what allows me to experience with him that which others argue can not be done. Such a depth would not exist if he were to have brought me in on a part time/limited time basis for the sole purpose of some basic services. So, contract servants are one thing, and fine for those who enjoy them. The depth of slavery that I have with my Owner, and which I believe Celeste has with hers (although I don't presume to speak for her or anyone else) is different than that. And it has nothing to do with romance.

Reasonable -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/28/2006 9:47:45 PM)
A long time slave becomes an extension of the Master. His figurative left hand,if you will. If seen in that light,the bond becomes astoundingly simple to understand. And explains why there is such a huge gap left behind when one passes.................

ownedgirlie -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/28/2006 10:03:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reasonable A long time slave becomes an extension of the Master. His figurative left hand,if you will. If seen in that light,the bond becomes astoundingly simple to understand. And explains why there is such a huge gap left behind when one passes................. Exactly so.

Reasonable -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/28/2006 10:07:56 PM)
I know a little bit about these things.............

Vancouver_cinful -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/29/2006 12:42:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadiesBladewing M/s is M/s... it isn't romance. Romance is romance. It may include M/s or not, but it takes a strong owner and a truly dedicated servant to not get lost in the romance and maintain the M/s portion of the relationship. I've seen a few folks who have made it work... but for most... shrugs Lady Zephyr But for many of us, the only way we would be interested in M/s is with someone that we love. So for us, M/s is romance. At this point in my life service in that degree is only possible through love. Different strokes for different folks. Cin

genvieve -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/29/2006 1:04:02 PM)
While i understand that not every D/s relationship can be forever and of course, the horrible truth is that most aren't, i do have a difficult time with being able to see the end. i have been in relationships where it was said that the end was not soon, but that it would happen, and it was always the elephant in the room. Suddenly, every fight, the couple begins to wonder...will this be the last fight. That being said, W/we not talking vanilla here, W/we're talking D/s. And the bond between Master/Mistress and submissive/slave is supposed to run deeper, speak truer. If W/we equate a collar to an engagement ring, then yes... i have a HUGE problem with being able to see the end, because...well... collars aren't semi-permanent...by their very definition...they're permanent. "i give myself to You completely" doesn't mean "Until it is no longer convienient for me"... it means "always" "forever" "even when times get hard and my life gets in the way." Maybe i'm being idealistic here, but that's how i feel. -genvieve

Reasonable -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/29/2006 1:33:46 PM)
genvieve, while I can respect your feelings,also realize that this can ultimately lead to a codendent relationship where one can feel so committed to a relationship that one refuses to leave. Even while being terribly damaged. Please people,keep in mind this-survival of self is always the first law-you have nothing without it.

BitaTruble -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/29/2006 2:25:15 PM)
quote: Why is there the implication that the contract would end because the individual in question "wasn't good enough"? We often take servants on a limited contract, because they want to learn, and we want to teach, but both parties know that there are other things going on in our lives that mean that, after a given amount of time, the contract will end. It has nothing to do with being "good enough"... we haven't had a servant yet who was dedicated to his or her service that wasn't "good enough". My brain works differently from yours, that's all. I don't get into that situation because I want to learn or have someone teach me. I am there to serve. Learning is a benefit not a motivation. I don't do temporary contracts or part-time or temporary service. I have no problem with those who do, just not for me. I enter into situations where I know that if I am what I claim I am, provide the service to the owner that he wishes me to provide, then he'll keep me. If I don't follow through, if I'm not everything I say I am, then he won't. To go into it knowing no matter what I do, he won't keep me doesn't give me an incentive to care about my service to him and if I can't provide outstanding service as he dictates, there is no point in my being there in the first place. If I were seeking employment and I was told up front, the employment was of limited duration, but I would have all the benefits of it during that time frame I wouldn't take it. No matter what I did, it wouldn't be good enough to get that job and keep it and what if I loved it! What if it was the best job I had ever had in the world. I don't get to keep it no matter what I do. That sucks. I would keep looking for an employer with whom I had long range possibilities, room to grow and climb up the ladder based on my performance, not on a time table. For that job I can be good enough and even exceed what is expected of me.. those are the sorts of opportunities which I seek. Others would be more than happy to take on the job that was of limited duration.. maybe even screw it up a lot knowing they had some security no matter what sort of service they provided. There's a job for everyone out there and I know myself well enough to know which ones to pass by. Celeste

LadiesBladewing -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/29/2006 3:25:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble My brain works differently from yours, that's all. I don't get into that situation because I want to learn or have someone teach me. I am there to serve. Learning is a benefit not a motivation. I don't do temporary contracts or part-time or temporary service. I have no problem with those who do, just not for me. I enter into situations where I know that if I am what I claim I am, provide the service to the owner that he wishes me to provide, then he'll keep me. If I don't follow through, if I'm not everything I say I am, then he won't. To go into it knowing no matter what I do, he won't keep me doesn't give me an incentive to care about my service to him and if I can't provide outstanding service as he dictates, there is no point in my being there in the first place. If I were seeking employment and I was told up front, the employment was of limited duration, but I would have all the benefits of it during that time frame I wouldn't take it. No matter what I did, it wouldn't be good enough to get that job and keep it and what if I loved it! What if it was the best job I had ever had in the world. I don't get to keep it no matter what I do. That sucks. I would keep looking for an employer with whom I had long range possibilities, room to grow and climb up the ladder based on my performance, not on a time table. For that job I can be good enough and even exceed what is expected of me.. those are the sorts of opportunities which I seek. Others would be more than happy to take on the job that was of limited duration.. maybe even screw it up a lot knowing they had some security no matter what sort of service they provided. There's a job for everyone out there and I know myself well enough to know which ones to pass by. Celeste I understand what you're saying, and I suppose that it is the same difference in perspective that lets one person want a "regular" job with a steady paycheck and the sense of security, and lets another person be comfortable with contract work and willing and able to handle periods where there is a space of time between contracts, and even extended periods without large contracts without worrying that he or she is "incapable" or "a poor provider" or "a failure". I have to admit that I'm perfectly comfortable with contract work, and actually like it better than going to a 9-5 job, though I am putting in my dues in a large corporation at the moment, mostly because I've never worked for one and really wanted to get some feel for the context in which people work for a megalithic employer. Again, though, I went into the position with the idea that it was until I'd learned what I needed to know about that way of living, so that I could understand better the people that I provide pastoral support to, who choose to live under the particular boundaries of that kind of life. This is one reason that I think that in-depth conversation about goals, concepts, ideas, and the less tangible aspects of the way each of us sees and lives our lives within and without the framework of alternative lifestyles needs to be a part of the discussion for those considering a long-term relationship. I think too many of us rush into things, assuming that everyone sees things the way that we do, and then find ourselves frustrated when the others in our lives seem to be operating contrary to the "agreed upon" (in actuality, often assumed) interpretations. Lady Zephyr

Reasonable -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/29/2006 3:39:38 PM)
Lady Zephyr wrote: quote: This is one reason that I think that in-depth conversation about goals, concepts, ideas, and the less tangible aspects of the way each of us sees and lives our lives within and without the framework of alternative lifestyles needs to be a part of the discussion for those considering a long-term relationship. I think too many of us rush into things, assuming that everyone sees things the way that we do, and then find ourselves frustrated when the others in our lives seem to be operating contrary to the "agreed upon" (in actuality, often assumed) interpretations. Smiles,very choherent,as usual. It would certainly save a lot of trouble if people could simply define thier needs clearly-and communicate why. There a big enchilada out there-not everyone takes the same bite.

BitaTruble -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/29/2006 3:54:21 PM)
quote: I understand what you're saying, and I suppose that it is the same difference in perspective that lets one person want a "regular" job with a steady paycheck and the sense of security, and lets another person be comfortable with contract work and willing and able to handle periods where there is a space of time between contracts, and even extended periods without large contracts without worrying that he or she is "incapable" or "a poor provider" or "a failure". I'm definitely colored by single parent mentality. Knowing that my kids depended on me and me alone, I couldn't take on situations that were temporary. I couldn't take the risks and subsequent benefits of temporary assignments because I couldn't just keep my fingers crossed and hope something came along when that assignment was over. It doesn't surprise me that that splashes over into my M/s mindset. I'd be rather surprised if it didn't in fact as it's so ingrained into my character. I passed by opportunities for short term M/s relationships hoping to find one that had long term potential and 10 years ago I found the right 'job' for me and I even get bennies from the Bossman. ;) Celeste

twicehappy -> RE: M/s but not forever (4/29/2006 7:07:02 PM)
quote: Would you consider it to be a Master/slave relationship if the Master told the slave up front that it will not be forever? No, to me a collar is to the end. I 've been collared 3 times, the 1st died in his chosen line of work after 3 years, the 2nd died after 18 years, six years later i accepted another, and both my owners view it the same way.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125