LadiesBladewing
Posts: 944
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline
|
I have to disagree with this conceptualization -- not because I don't think that people need to put direction and intention into the things that they want, but because I think, for many, it isn't intention that is the real deciding factor, but a willingness to experiment, give a -real- trial to things that challenge them, and have a clear picture of what they want, and know what they can and can't compromise on -before- they enter into a relationship. I also think that people don't relate in ways that are beneficial to them in the long-run in most cases... they dismiss possible relationships where they could learn a lot, simply because the relationship doesn't come with enough 'strings' for them. I think this puts too much pressure on the relationship from the start, and starts to strangle the potential before it has even been experienced.
I go into relationships with the intent to enjoy the relationship, grow through it, and work with the people that I'm involved with to make the relationship as positive as it can be for all of us. There is no time intention. There is the possibility of great things that could happen, but we are not so tied to possibilities that we try to twist the relationship into something it isn't and was never meant to be.
With that philosophy, my co-matriarch and I have been together for a decade. We've gone from two couples to a fully integrated quad household, to a training home with anywhere from 5 to 30 individuals participating, to a collective household with its own abbey. We've weathered communions of spirit, and the deaths of those closest to us. We've raised communal human seedlings, argued, set personal and partnership goals, moved from a dynamic where one of us was solely in charge and the other solely in service to a cooperative matriarchy... and even today, there is no implication that we are tied to one another forever, and our intent is only to make -today- as joyful and fulfilling for one another and those we come in contact with as possible. The people with whom we share communal philosophy have watched their relationships last anywhere from 2 years to 35 (just in our immediate circle) using the same philosophy.
I don't think there is -any- requirement of an intention to be together forever to make a relationship successful for 10, 50 or a hundred years.
Lady Zephyr
quote:
ORIGINAL: Takethiswaltz
I have seen much beauty in the depth of vanilla relationships that have lasted 50 years.
Why is this not possible for D/s as well?
Some may answer, " we never said it was not possible".
But it isn't really, if you don't go into with the intent to make it possible.
< Message edited by LadiesBladewing -- 5/1/2006 3:27:54 PM >
_____________________________
"Should have", "could have", "would have" and "can't" may be the most dangerous phrases in the English language.
Bladewing Enclave
|
RE: M/s but not forever - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread