RE: Love & Authority?

RE: Love & Authority? (Full Version)

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

Message

RumpusParable -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/29/2012 10:13:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC So not wanting to derail another thread I'm starting this one. Yes, I know this isn't the first time it's come up but there was a fascinating statement made... or at least interesting to me. quote: ...if the relationship is all about love and romance with a bit of kink it is going to end up the bedroom only, weekend warrior type of relationship, not something very deep on the kink or submission side. Opinions? Is this so in your experience? Clearly, you can't add "love" into the equation without it changing things dramatically, but are those changes so simple to predict? (and yes, the regulars know that I fit squarely into the "all about love & romance" category and no, I don't care whether that makes me a "weekend warrior type".) I think the key spot in that statement is "with a bit of kink", not with the "love and romance" part. If a relationship of any sort has just a "bit of kink" to it and that is not a major focus (whether we're speaking of play or PE dynamics) then it is only a "weekend warrior" situation, though I hate such terms. If it's a now and then thing, it's a now and then thing.... regardless of love and romance or lack of those. I think it really just comes down to "If the people aren't heavily into something, then they aren't heavily into it".

JeffBC -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/29/2012 11:27:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lizi Your question appealed to me because I kind of struggle with it too, the feeling of having something that's rather nebulous and undefined. I think as humans we like having things defined. I think that's why BDSM appeals to many of us, it gives us the coloring book lines to fill in and rules to follow. Until it doesn't. Hahahahahaha.... yes, exactly. quote: I like seeing how it applies to others as well, I kind of envy the straight forward take some have on their relationships but it's just not how things work for us at this time in our lives. Yup, exactly that too... and as much as I also sometimes have this vague sense of envy about the lack of clarity I wouldn't trade what I have for anything else. As you say, it fits us at this moment... although as I noted above, there are some personal demons in me that still need working on. Like others, I don't have any issue with declining to do things which will produce negative results in the relationship. Some of the "wish list" things I have though are there for no good reason and that still needs ongoing work to root out. quote: We'll see where things go, but I suspect we'll always be kind of undefined In my own head I don't see it so much "undefined" as "complex". Carol and I have been together a long time. There was a decade of vanilla base. Then this whole BDSM thing layered on top of that. Wrapped around it all is the love and trust and my generally dominant attitude and her preference for deference. There's a lot of ingredients in that dish and they'd have a long time now to mix together. I have to say though, my recent forays into the vanilla relationship world have left me profoundly grateful for that lack of clarity. One of the things I so enjoy about posting here is that there's just so much room for confusion :)

JeffBC -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/29/2012 11:29:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RumpusParable I think the key spot in that statement is "with a bit of kink", not with the "love and romance" part. If a relationship of any sort has just a "bit of kink" to it and that is not a major focus (whether we're speaking of play or PE dynamics) then it is only a "weekend warrior" situation You are right, of course. I missed that angle because I never think of our PE dynamic as a kink. So I'd definitely say we have "just a bit of kink". I wouldn't say we have just a bit of PE dynamic though.

DesFIP -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/29/2012 5:58:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RumpusParable If a relationship of any sort has just a "bit of kink" to it and that is not a major focus (whether we're speaking of play or PE dynamics) then it is only a "weekend warrior" situatio This made me stop and think. I don't normally define PE as kink. In most relationships there's someone who makes more of the decisions. So when someone says a bit of kink, that's about all I'm having. Between not being 100% and having four or more young adults in this house at any one time, we're lucky to have any kink. But him saying "go get your shoes on, we need to go to Lowes for 2 x 6's" just doesn't seem kinky to me. Him saying "go get naked, I'm going to tie you up" does.

kittycake -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/29/2012 7:38:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 In my case, BDSM happened because of love, I actually changed my way of thinking because Love of the man. Love gave him authority. Without love, Id be saying "KISS MY ASS, YOU WANT ME TO DO WHAT???" lol. I think love enriches the experience, I cant imagine giving someone authority without it. This is me, too. I've scened outside of loving relationships, and it did absolutely nothing for me outside of learning new sensations and practices. The actual authority comes out of love.

LunaM -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/29/2012 8:45:09 PM)
"..if the relationship is all about love and romance with a bit of kink it is going to end up the bedroom only, weekend warrior type of relationship, not something very deep on the kink or submission side. " Interesting discussion to present. I definitely had to mull over this for a bit. I find I disagree with the above statement. Love and romance, in my opinion, does not thwart the submission side of kink. At all. It makes me want to surrender to my Master even more and it takes the dynamic of our Master/slave relationship outside of the bedroom and into our everyday lives. My submission to my Master allows our relationship to deepen and it deepens not only because of my submission to Him, but because of the love I have for Him and the amount of trust that is between us. I agree with ResidentSadist here about how the emotions can follow one another but are not dependent upon the other. I loved Master at first but the trust was built between us and from the love and with the submission everything deepened. I agree with Poise because of what she said about the love allowing the submission to grow, so very true for me. I also agree with Raspberry Lemon. Love has many definitions for different people but in my definition it allows me to be more myself with Master, which allows our relationship to grow in ALL areas, so that they almost become blended and not so compartmenatlized like our Master/slave is just for the bedroom. I defer to him in public, yet he will ask me what I want for supper, but I will be making him coffee at the same time. It encompasses us, it's natural. Just like breathing.

AthenaSurrenders -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/30/2012 2:03:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LunaM Love has many definitions for different people but in my definition it allows me to be more myself with Master, which allows our relationship to grow in ALL areas, so that they almost become blended and not so compartmenatlized like our Master/slave is just for the bedroom. I defer to him in public, yet he will ask me what I want for supper, but I will be making him coffee at the same time. It encompasses us, it's natural. Just like breathing. This is lovely, I can relate to this very much. This thread has been an interesting read. Everyone has a different slant and yet I think there has been a little something from everyone which hits home for me.

NuevaVida -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/30/2012 11:12:31 AM)
Fast Reply. And please bear with me as I am typing from my phone, which is a pain! I don't find much value in absolute statements like the one quoted in the OP. I think people do what they want to do, and what they're capable of doing. Maybe whomever said that statement isn't capable of engaging in D/s or M/s with love, and that's cool. It's just not an across the board rule. Just like it's not an across the board rule that love must reside in a healthy D/s relationship. I have been in long term relationships in which I have lived but was not loved in return, and always felt something was lacking. Now that I am loved, I will never submit without two way love again. His love is what enables and allows me to give what I do, both in the bedroom and out. In fact, it's easy for me to sexually submit or get our kinky groove on, without love. It's his rule over me in all areas of my life that needs his love. It took a lot of work to bring my life where I want it. Someone who doesn't love me doesn't get to tinker with that.

JeffBC -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/30/2012 12:29:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida I don't find much value in absolute statements like the one quoted in the OP. I think people do what they want to do, and what they're capable of doing. Maybe whomever said that statement isn't capable of engaging in D/s or M/s with love, and that's cool. It's just not an across the board rule. Just like it's not an across the board rule that love must reside in a healthy D/s relationship. To be fair, I doubt that the person who said it, Malkinius, meant to say that love based relationships are somehow less-than or defective in any way. I think he was basically trying to get to something like: You can't treat someone as property and as a wife at the same time. And honestly, that I agree with depending on what we mean by "property". I do, in fact, see Carol as my property. But she's my property that I love. She's very definitely not in the "employee" category. What that means is the paths my authority takes are different than they would be if the only thing guiding me was "my needs" and "not breaking the toys". For someone who wanted to be selfishly used, I'd be a really, really bad pick. I'd be wanting to nurture her and she'd be aggravated by that. quote: Someone who doesn't love me doesn't get to tinker with that. nods I can't honestly comprehend of anyone allowing the sorts of things Carol allows me in the absence of love. This is why I say that a property/ownership based relationship is different than a love based one... both for better and worse depending on how one counts score. On one hand (at least for me), the love basis shapes and defines how and why the authority is used. It's not at all selfish. In fact, most of the authority I wield is reasonably selfless as my own conception of love dictates. So for someone looking to be "used"... not so good. On the other hand, for a woman like Carol it is that very selflessness which inspires her to agree to things like: "What Jeff thinks is good IS good." As in most complicated things, I suspect there are always trade-offs to be made.

NuevaVida -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/30/2012 2:07:38 PM)
I dunno, Jeff, calling people "Weekend Warriors" seems rather disparaging to me. But to each their own. I think property and love don't need to be separated though. What about loved property? Why couldn't that be the foundation, rather than one OR the other?

KnightofMists -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/30/2012 3:21:13 PM)
quote: You can't treat someone as property and as a wife at the same time. I love the pen I use. Never use any other type. I love my IPad... Using it now in fact I love my camera... Will be using to take pictures for my daughters grad class In a couple weeks. I love my house.. Especially the walkout basement and location in town. I love my slaves.... More property for me to use and take care of so I have them for a long time. Interesting... The more valuable the property is that I love the more effort expended to take care of it properly. But my love for it never stops me from using it the way I want. If it did? Then why keep it.

littlewonder -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/30/2012 5:04:00 PM)
quote: You can't treat someone as property and as a wife at the same time. It's only been within the time of women's rights that wives have not been seen as property. I'm still old fashioned though and I do indeed still see a wife as property. So yeah....you can.

LunaM -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/30/2012 7:30:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder quote: You can't treat someone as property and as a wife at the same time. It's only been within the time of women's rights that wives have not been seen as property. I'm still old fashioned though and I do indeed still see a wife as property. So yeah....you can. To the bolded part, here here!

JeffBC -> RE: Love & Authority? (4/30/2012 9:10:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder It's only been within the time of women's rights that wives have not been seen as property. I'm still old fashioned though and I do indeed still see a wife as property. So yeah....you can. Excellent point. All of which leaves me thinking I need to get around to more M/s couples in the real world.

Awareness -> RE: Love & Authority? (5/1/2012 1:13:00 AM)
I don't think that's necessarily accurate. Women submit due to the man. But they do have certain expectations, one of which is how the dominant expresses his displeasure and deals with her variation from his wishes. All women test their men. There is no reason why submissive women should be any different. So while love and romance is eminently possible, there does need to be that willingness to deal with a sub's infractions. Otherwise, you're simply not steering the ship. Where love interferes with the Dom's ability to do that, is where you have a problem. Your self-discipline and will must be stronger than your love.

LadyPact -> RE: Love & Authority? (5/1/2012 5:50:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida I dunno, Jeff, calling people "Weekend Warriors" seems rather disparaging to me. But to each their own. In defense of Malkinius, I have reason to think that I understand completely why he used that particular term. It was the best descriptor to convey what happens in some long term situations over time. It's hard for some who say that they have always been <insert roll here> and that is the way that they interact with the person with whom they share intimacy to see how these things happen. All of us Dominant or submissive types, especially those who acknowledge the authority structure as a constant (24/7) in the relationship have a really tough time imagining that undercurrent not being present. Yet, anybody who has been around other people in an alternative lifestyles long enough can tell you that there is a percentage of folks that, over time, pretty much, all of the alternative part has disappeared. They may still have the same personality types, but the way that they interact with each other has changed significantly from where they started out. Rather than an imbalance of power, they end up being equal partners on the authority front. It's not a huge section of the D/s or M/s folks out there. Still, it does happen. If I had to take a stab at it, I'd say the culprit behind it is most often a combination of complacency and just regular adjusting to life changes. Kids come along, people are more successful in their career, or they just lose certain drives. The little things start slipping and before people know it, the power dynamic has eroded away. Ten years later, they look back and wonder where it went. These folks are most definitely still in love and have no intention of parting. Of those that I know, I'd call it about half and half. One half, both people are perfectly content with each other being vanilla. The other half, I'd say that one person wishes they had some kind of semblance of the authority structure, but they accept it because being in love and content on that front is good enough. (It's fair to mention here that there was one case specifically where the M of the house "found God" and the wife is in the latter category of wanting the M/s back, but she loves him.) The weekend warrior comment. From those people that I know where this has happened, the kinky sex was the last to go. It doesn't always go away completely, but that's what is left of the D/s component. quote: I think property and love don't need to be separated though. What about loved property? Why couldn't that be the foundation, rather than one OR the other? Not everybody has to prioritize themselves in such a way. I think it's just that some of us recognize that there can only be one highest priority. It's just a matter of looking at the person on the other side and knowing the answer to which you would give up for the sake of what. If the "in love" was gone, could the authority and/or kink be something you would be willing to continue? If the authority and/or kink part was gone, would the "in love" part be enough? For My own perspective, the answer is different for Me depending on the individual. In MP's case, it's definitely the "in love" part. If I had to choose between the options, loving him, our marriage, and our life together would win. Any submissive that I have and it's the opposite. The authority comes first and if that is absent, the affection/love isn't enough.

DesFIP -> RE: Love & Authority? (5/1/2012 8:19:30 AM)
I'm not sure if that's true. The other way of looking at it is that he really only has a couple of dozen rules that are important to him. And over time, I've internalized them. So peas are never served to him. Nor hard boiled eggs. Nor do I sleep in pajamas if he's in bed. The fact that life is led according to his wishes could mean the PE is still in place. What isn't happening is him thinking up random things just to make it clear who is the boss. He doesn't have to belabor that point because when a situation naturally arises, he always is. It's less fun than the 'training' period, but that doesn't mean the structure has changed. It just means we've covered up the building beams with decorative finishes so you don't notice them. Which is very different then them not being there.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Love & Authority? (5/1/2012 8:24:07 AM)
What Des said.

JeffBC -> RE: Love & Authority? (5/1/2012 8:47:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact The weekend warrior comment. From those people that I know where this has happened, the kinky sex was the last to go. It doesn't always go away completely, but that's what is left of the D/s component. laughs... tough times for those of us without the kinky sex part at all. No wait.. as I think on it, we seem to be going the other way... more kinky sex over time. Honestly, whatever Malkinius might have meant (and I don't think he's a bad guy, I think I took one statement he said out of context because it was interesting to me), to me this question has come down to a question of selfishness/selflessness on the part of the master. I think I had a mistaken impression of some people's relationships here. That's why I think I need to get out and see more real life M/s couples. I also agree with Des's comment. Sure, for people who have chosen dynamics complacency is always the enemy. But the fact that a dynamic isn't readily visible to an outsider can be very deceptive in a long-term relationship.

OsideGirl -> RE: Love & Authority? (5/1/2012 9:53:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP The fact that life is led according to his wishes could mean the PE is still in place. What isn't happening is him thinking up random things just to make it clear who is the boss. He doesn't have to belabor that point because when a situation naturally arises, he always is. It's less fun than the 'training' period, but that doesn't mean the structure has changed. It just means we've covered up the building beams with decorative finishes so you don't notice them. Which is very different then them not being there. Exactly, just because the control isn't obvious to others and just because it isn't actively vocalized, doesn't mean that control doesn't exist. This house is run in manner that pleases him, he just doesn't have to remind me everyday.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875