Another take on Disappointment

[Lancecastor]

Hmmmmm....BDSM Winston Cup Racing?

Shadowsdream's words (below) got me to wondering.....Let's say I really like stock car racing and own a car I race on weekends. Really love it. Or hockey. Or bowling....any heavy duty hobby. Fashion. Bodybuilding....whatever.

Granted, the chances of long term love emerging and always having soil to grow with are better they say where common interests help bind one to the other.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say that one should look for the common interests only and exclusively before even THINKING about the possibility of Love rearing its' ugly head.

Methinks the answer is in the middle somewhere and BDSM is no different than stock car racing in this respect.

Hmmm, now there's a neat idea....BDSM Winston Cup...gives the Firecracker 400 a whole new, er, spin.

vvvvroom, zoom-zoom;
LC

What I am saying is that IF you have a burning need..an overwhelming need...that cannot just be satisfied with occassional bedroom play...a need that you feel will grow and follow you all through your life...then yes I am saying beginning with the BDSM will take you further than beginning with the *love*

BUT I am also saying there should be some *magic* *sparks* between both parties..even if not volcanic eruptions..to keep the craving active on both sides.

Be clear to yourself what you are looking for, never search in desperation and never accept in excitement. If you do you may have many short relationships, many moments that take you over the moon, many memories that begin in ecstacy and dissolve in boredom or disallussionment.

*love* softens emotions...it is not a bad thing...but soft edges *can* change the dynamics if they are not in place before the structure of a BDSM relationship.


Good luck in your search mg...your magic is out there!

 

[CarolineOh]

Re: Hmmmmm....BDSM Winston Cup Racing?

Shadowsdream's words (below) got me to wondering.....Let's say I really like stock car racing and own a car I race on weekends. Really love it. Or hockey. Or bowling....any heavy duty hobby. Fashion. Bodybuilding....whatever.

Granted, the chances of long term love emerging and always having soil to grow with are better they say where common interests help bind one to the other.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say that one should look for the common interests only and exclusively before even THINKING about the possibility of Love rearing its' ugly head.

Methinks the answer is in the middle somewhere and BDSM is no different than stock car racing in this respect.

Hmmm, now there's a neat idea....BDSM Winston Cup...gives the Firecracker 400 a whole new, er, spin.

vvvvroom, zoom-zoom;
LC

I think that you are correct, in general, except that BDSM desires, for most of us, are something deeper than a sport or hobby preference and represent a more intrinsic part of our self identity, and an important, if not the basic, part of how we perceive of our relationships. Being a racing fan might be very important to a person, but it does not, in itself, have anything to do with the kind of relationship on would seek. Would a partner who shares the interest be preferred? Probably, but the relationship itself would most likely not be defined in terms of auto racing.

 

[MissTaken]

What I am finding is working for me is compartmentalizing the two,

love

BDSM.

While I may be with someone who is into BDSM and has similar tastes, the play is a separate issue from the love relationship.

What I mean is that for now, BDSM describes HOW we make love, how we show love, it does not define the affection or love itself.

I don't know. It is a new approach and perhaps it will work.

If not, I will chalk it up as another disappointment

This like any other intimate relationship, begins with a bang, fireworks and the excitement of having found someone special. The anticipation and anxiety, wondering "Is this the One?" adds to the flutters in the tummy. Then, the honeymoon is over and the real work begins. Relationships don't just happen, they require dedication, commitment, openess and work.

 

[Shadowsdream]

(But I wouldn't go so far as to say that one should look for the common interests only and exclusively before even THINKING about the possibility of Love rearing its' ugly head. )

IF I thought common BDSM interests were enough I wouldn't be known as the Impossible Domme that counsels those I advise or train to settle for no less than the magic sparks that they feel together...both sides. It is simply My contention that the MAGIC sparks ignite if they don't burn out and the magic will evolve into love.

Words like Exclusively...Only...Always...simply show a narrow mind...I write My words from the perspective of Generally when I use My life experience to convey what I have seen or experienced in the BDSM world I enjoy so much.

There are as many ways of entering or exiting the D/s world as there are in winning or losing the Indy or is that Indie? Arghhhhh!

 

[MsWorthy]

this may be simply semantics....but

This issue is why I made the statement in the New Faces thread that my experience and opinions may not fit the tone/beliefs of this forum.

In my opinion, you are discussing two different things: d/s and s/m.

D/s is a relationship in which an exchange of personal power occurs. The submissive gives some or all of her personal power (making decisions on how she speaks, dresses, spends money, cooks, etc...) to her dominant. D/s is more often than not a lifestyle not a playstyle.

S/m is a way of relating sexually. The Sadist derives sexual pleasure by creating pain or intense sensation in the masochist. The masochist derives sexual pleasure in having pain or intense sensation created in her/him by the sadist. S/m is a playstyle (way of expressing sexuality) not a lifestyle.

Neither d/s nor s/m are inherent in the other, but they can certainly overlap.

My experience is that love only becomes a problem when a relationship is based on d/s but contains some strong s/m needs for one partner but not the other. Since d/s is a personality trait and communication style, those who have stronger (or only) d/s leanings tend to bond emotionally and love develops. Love is often a prerequisite and basic need for the dominant and submissive relationship.

Whereas the sadist and masochist relationship tends to flourish in the absence/control of love because the sadist and masochist need to KNOW that the pain is real. Love then becomes a detriment or a need to "hold back" because love for the submissive creates a moral issue for the dom/me when causing pain in the one she/he loves.

To illustrate, I will use my own experience. My s/m is mild (my way of explaining that my need for s/m is low and my urges are infrequent), but occasionally I do have the sexual urge/desire to create pain or discomfort (example: humiliation) in my submissive.

This creates a moral dilemma in my mind. Because I love my partner I do not want to do anything to cause her pain, and since she is not much of a masochist (mild sensation only) I must weigh my desire for creating pain in her with my desire to only make her happy. This, at the least, causes me to hesitate. At the most, it causes me to repress my desire for expressing my sensually sadistic side.

This moral dilemma or repression only becomes a problem when one of us (domme or sub) has more of an s/m need than the other. So that one of the couple is having to repress a need so much that is becomes uncomfortable.

As many have shared in this thread, some can separate sensual s/m needs from emotional (perhaps d/s) needs. This solves the problem if one is not equally driven by both her/his d/s and s/m needs when her partner is driven only by one (either d/s OR s/m). If each expression of the self is equally important and one's partner does not have the same balance of d/s and s/m needs, a problem will surface eventually.

~I hope that made some sort of sense~

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: this may be simply semantics....but

My experience is that love only becomes a problem when a relationship is based on d/s but contains some strong s/m needs for one partner but not the other. Since d/s is a personality trait and communication style, those who have stronger (or only) d/s leanings tend to bond emotionally and love develops. Love is often a prerequisite and basic need for the dominant and submissive relationship.

Whereas the sadist and masochist relationship tends to flourish in the absence/control of love because the sadist and masochist need to KNOW that the pain is real. Love then becomes a detriment or a need to "hold back" because love for the submissive creates a moral issue for the dom/me when causing pain in the one she/he loves.


~I hope that made some sort of sense~

You made perfect sense. This is something that has been said several times here, but never so well-thought out and clearly stated. It gave me one of those "a-ha" moments, you know that moment when something you knew anyway, but someone said it in a way that it had relevance and could actually be used.

In a discussion i had with someone, i was trying to explain my needs, how being submissive to him made me feel and why i needed that in my life. To me, for me, he was always dominant and in ways that met my needs perfectly. His response was "i don't want to hurt you, i don't think i can be what you need."
I thought i wasn't asking for anything more than what he was already giving me. My belief was that the domination was already happening, let's just accept it, bring it into the open and discuss it.

MsWorthy, you've just given me a completely different view on what happened.

 

[MsWorthy]

Re: Re: this may be simply semantics....but

Originally posted by morninggirl5

You made perfect sense. This is something that has been said several times here, but never so well-thought out and clearly stated. It gave me one of those "a-ha" moments, you know that moment when something you knew anyway, but someone said it in a way that it had relevance and could actually be used.

I am pleased that my comments made sense to you.

~thinking of changing my sig line to read - creates the "ah-ha" moment~

In a discussion i had with someone, i was trying to explain my needs, how being submissive to him made me feel and why i needed that in my life. To me, for me, he was always dominant and in ways that met my needs perfectly. His response was "i don't want to hurt you, i don't think i can be what you need." I thought i wasn't asking for anything more than what he was already giving me. My belief was that the domination was already happening, let's just accept it, bring it into the open and discuss it.

MsWorthy, you've just given me a completely different view on what happened.

Do you believe (or think he believed) that you craved more s/m in your relationship than he did?

If that is the case, perhaps that is why he faced the moral dilemma of creating pain for you.

If he didn't have much of a desire for s/m then creating pain for you would make him very uncomfortable.

 

[artful]

Re: this may be simply semantics....but

This issue is why I made the statement in the New Faces thread that my experience and opinions may not fit the tone/beliefs of this forum.

In my opinion, you are discussing two different things: d/s and s/m.

D/s is a relationship in which an exchange of personal power occurs. The submissive gives some or all of her personal power (making decisions on how she speaks, dresses, spends money, cooks, etc...) to her dominant. D/s is more often than not a lifestyle not a playstyle.

S/m is a way of relating sexually. The Sadist derives sexual pleasure by creating pain or intense sensation in the masochist. The masochist derives sexual pleasure in having pain or intense sensation created in her/him by the sadist. S/m is a playstyle (way of expressing sexuality) not a lifestyle.

Neither d/s nor s/m are inherent in the other, but they can certainly overlap.

My experience is that love only becomes a problem when a relationship is based on d/s but contains some strong s/m needs for one partner but not the other. Since d/s is a personality trait and communication style, those who have stronger (or only) d/s leanings tend to bond emotionally and love develops. Love is often a prerequisite and basic need for the dominant and submissive relationship.

Whereas the sadist and masochist relationship tends to flourish in the absence/control of love because the sadist and masochist need to KNOW that the pain is real. Love then becomes a detriment or a need to "hold back" because love for the submissive creates a moral issue for the dom/me when causing pain in the one she/he loves.

To illustrate, I will use my own experience. My s/m is mild (my way of explaining that my need for s/m is low and my urges are infrequent), but occasionally I do have the sexual urge/desire to create pain or discomfort (example: humiliation) in my submissive.

This creates a moral dilemma in my mind. Because I love my partner I do not want to do anything to cause her pain, and since she is not much of a masochist (mild sensation only) I must weigh my desire for creating pain in her with my desire to only make her happy. This, at the least, causes me to hesitate. At the most, it causes me to repress my desire for expressing my sensually sadistic side.

This moral dilemma or repression only becomes a problem when one of us (domme or sub) has more of an s/m need than the other. So that one of the couple is having to repress a need so much that is becomes uncomfortable.

As many have shared in this thread, some can separate sensual s/m needs from emotional (perhaps d/s) needs. This solves the problem if one is not equally driven by both her/his d/s and s/m needs when her partner is driven only by one (either d/s OR s/m). If each expression of the self is equally important and one's partner does not have the same balance of d/s and s/m needs, a problem will surface eventually.

~I hope that made some sort of sense~

Dear MsWorthy,
You have made my copy and paste list !
Congratulations, you are now listed with such notables as:

cymbidia
Hecate
Lancecastor
MissTaken
morninggirl5
RisiaSkye
ShadowsDream
WillowPuss
Wizard
and
WriterDom

Thank you for posting the above in such a clear manner. I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion.

 

[WillowPuss]

Excuse me please Artful, but could you explain what you mean by your 'copy and paste' list?

 

[artful]

My Copy and Paste List...

Excuse me please Artful, but could you explain what you mean by your 'copy and paste' list?

...is a list of people whose POSTS often have some worthy information in them that I find useful
to copy and paste in my document files.

 

[WillowPuss]

Oh.

Err thanks.
I count myself very honoured to be included in the list.

This is especially true as there are some people there whom (who? sorry, brain dead today) I admire and look up to.

 

[zipperdiva]

Fabulous food for thought

I've had a terribly busy week and so I'm just catching up on threads now. This thread is SO fascinating and has been dealt with such intelligence.

I think understanding the difference between romantic love vs. loving is essential. I believe romantic love leaves one vulnerable to emotional manipulation and can easy dilute ones ability to maintain clear directives and dominance (not just SM).

Someone mentioned that all this is subjective. Naturally, it is. However, I think narrowing the field a bit might help. For instance, if we're talking about a relationship that is completely D/s in nature, does not switch, does not have partnering aspects to it and is solely operating with the understanding that one masters and one submits then romantic love is dangerous, counter productive and almost impossible to navigate into the long, long term. I also think that feeling "in love" can be a stage the servant goes through. If the one mastering keeps their head together and does not fall in love, this stage could pass and pass into a deeper loving that will foster further submission. (deeper does not mean better, just deeper on an individual basis, if you will).

I think another good point was made about there not being a "right way," if you will. However, I do think there are some possible common ground rules that work for particular types of relationship. The most successful relationships that I have seen or experienced were between individuals who were not each other's "type" or primary attraction. Meaning, a gay man mastering a gay woman. Or a butch mastering a femme when her primary attraction is to other butchs. I have seen this in relationships that last 5+ years. We've discussed it and how it aids in keeping romantic love out of it and how that aids the clarity of the relation.

Someone else mentioned that D/s is more a lifestyle than a sex style. I have to disagree. I find D/s to be all things. It is a sex style for me. LOL..let us also remember, I'm the oddity that gets off on a perfectly set dinner table. So, I find I get off on D/s in the everyday. D/s can afford me the same sexual pleasure as SM.

I think any successful relation in the long term must have intimacy (emotional and physical) and love. I just think that for some relations one type of love works better than other types of love.

And there you have it, my five cents of thoughts for the day! Have a lovely week-end everyone. : )

 

[MsWorthy]

Re: Re: this may be simply semantics....but

Dear MsWorthy,
You have made my copy and paste list !
Thank you for posting the above in such a clear manner. I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion.

Artful, thank you, I am honored to have made such a list.

 

[luvsubbbbb]

Re: this may be simply semantics....but

.

In my opinion, you are discussing two different things: d/s and s/m...............

My experience is that love only becomes a problem when a relationship is based on d/s but contains some strong s/m needs for one partner but not the other. Since d/s is a personality trait and communication style, those who have stronger (or only) d/s leanings tend to bond emotionally and love develops. Love is often a prerequisite and basic need for the dominant and submissive relationship.

i would like to add another dimension to this discussion as well as a result of reading the above excerpts as well as Mistress Shadowsdream's previous comments........

Firstly, i would like to say that in my opinion love usually only "cramps the style" of the Dominant when the needs of the partners are not seamless......meaning.........that the Dominant feels the urge to compromise because of the love He/She has for the submissive who has different tastes in certain areas.......

Secondly, and here is the added dimension.......although i do not consider myself to be bi, i have served male Dominants from a D/s perspective in various ways...and there was NO emotion or love involved in the relationship..........strictly power exchange while we were "in scene"............and they were often quite intense nonetheless.........

so....it isnt only S/m relationships that are unemotional ones.......but i DO follow what you are saying MsWorthy......

i believe that the vibrant completed circle of a fulfilling D/s relationship is extremely important.....that can be accomplished with or without love........but if it happens without love, and one of the parties finds love elsewhere to the exclusion of the other, it could very well result in the deterioration of the relationship unless the partner without a love interest's needs are not left wanting........ unfulfilled and partially empty.....

 

[cellis]

Re: Re: this may be simply semantics....but

i believe that the vibrant completed circle of a fulfilling D/s relationship is extremely important.....that can be accomplished with or without love........but if it happens without love, and one of the parties finds love elsewhere to the exclusion of the other, it could very well result in the deterioration of the relationship unless the partner without a love interest's needs are not left wanting........ unfulfilled and partially empty.....

luv I think this is so true. It is funny, in my own life the D/s was there before there was love. I wasn't looking for a love match. But I did want that skin to skin experience.

Somewhere along the way love took both of us by surprise. And I think that the fact that we care deeply for one another enhances our experiences more than anything.

 

[MsWorthy]

Re: Re: this may be simply semantics....but

Secondly, and here is the added dimension.......although i do not consider myself to be bi, i have served male Dominants from a D/s perspective in various ways...and there was NO emotion or love involved in the relationship..........strictly power exchange while we were "in scene"............and they were often quite intense nonetheless.........

so....it isnt only S/m relationships that are unemotional ones.......but i DO follow what you are saying MsWorthy......

I think I understand what you are saying, Luvsubbb. Would you mind telling me what happened when you were "in scene" with this male dominant? Perhaps this will clear it up for me.

My thinking is that b/d and s/m are entirely different than d/s. My belief is that d/s is a lifestyle/relating style while b/d and s/m are play styles (a way of expressing the self sexually). Perhaps I simply draw the line deeper between them than others do.

When I think of a submissive submitting to her dominant, I think of her giving her personal power to Her/Him (I used caps to indicate the dominant for clarity). For example, a submissive gives her decision-making power to her dominant so that She/He now has the right/priviledge/duty of making decisions that effect them both. This is not about being "in scene." There is no scene or play arena when a submissive gives her power to her dominant. This is simply day-to-day life.

This is in contrast to a s/m or b/d scene in which a submissive would be flogged, bound, humiliated, spanked, blind-folded, gagged...etc.

In my opinion, d/s needs no scene. It is not physical, it is mental and emotional. Physical expression is about b/d and s/m, not d/s

 

[MsWorthy]

"In my opinion, d/s needs no scene. It is not physical, it is mental and emotional. Physical expression is about b/d and s/m, not d/s"

Perhaps it is unnecessary, but I wanted to add that d/s can certainly be a part of s/m and b/d play.

However, as it pertains to a lifestyle (a way of living day to day) d/s can stand alone, while the other two can not, unless one defines her/his lifestyle only (or primarily) by her/his sexual needs (in which case, this is moot).

D/s needs neither b/d nor s/m for expression.

*I am not suggesting that either is, in any way, better than the other, just that they are different.

 

[luvsubbbbb]

"In my opinion, d/s needs no scene. It is not physical, it is mental and emotional. Physical expression is about b/d and s/m, not d/s"

Perhaps it is unnecessary, but I wanted to add that d/s can certainly be a part of s/m and b/d play.

However, as it pertains to a lifestyle (a way of living day to day) d/s can stand alone, while the other two can not, unless one defines her/his lifestyle only (or primarily) by her/his sexual needs (in which case, this is moot).

D/s needs neither b/d nor s/m for expression.

*I am not suggesting that either is, in any way, better than the other, just that they are different.

well...i believe that your second post answered your question of me, in some ways, MsWorthy......as there WAS D/s and B/D in my "scenes", but no S/m.......

i felt the power that the Dominant had over me while i was in his presence, altho i knew it would end the moment that i stepped out his front door........

the scenes consisted of ritualistic D/s activities and consisted of fairly high degrees of protocol......there was much bondage and i was very much under his control during the duration of our meetings......there was also much bondage during the scene.....

BUT...there was no emotional attachment of any kind between the two of us....just mutual respect and the fulfillment of each others needs.....

i would like to point out that the last time i served this individual was 15 years ago.......since then i have only had interest in relationship based activities with a certain level of emotional attachment a goal, if not ALWAYS achieved.........

again, i agree with you insofar as your view of BDSM as a lifestyle, that S/m and B/D needs D/s, but i have heard many suggest that they are into S/m but NOT D/s......to me, that represents "a vanilla relationship with kink", but not everybody sees it that way!! ::smiles::

 

[Shadowsdream]

(I have been watching it happen skin to skin as well when first meetings built on *love* before skin became uncomfortable impossibiities. I know that many believe that love is the beginning of a good D/s relationship and I must take the more unpopular road here. I take it because in over 30 years I see the same record being played until the vinyl has long been scratched beyond any sound recognition. )

I am enjoying this thread immensely and thank all who have brought so much depth and passion to it.

My point was not meant to be what is or is not D/s..BDSM...B/D...S/M or any other variation of play or relationships.

It was more simply an observation that I have been seeing consistantly for as long as I can remember and even more so since the Internet has become the vehicle where meetings first occur.

And so I pop back into the thread to reiterate My statements.

IF the persons involved have BOTH been searching for a relationship FROM the standpoint of their NEEDS revolving around a long term D/s future together it is often, more often than not on its way to over before it begins IF one or both of the new hopefuls have added the *love* equation BEFORE the D/s begins.

IF that same couple is searching for *love* and find it first and both happen to also enjoy BDSM but it NOT what there initial search was all about then lets admit it! They may just have fell into a jackpot of good luck and growth in a new arena.

I hope this explanation does not confuse more than clarify My original post.

~~~grin~~~I truly am enjoying the wonderful words here.

 

[artful]

This may become an unpopular subject..and I have bitten My tongue for some time about it.

I have read many threads of disappointment lately. unfullfilled realities. I have seen posters come and go when they could not cope with their public loss of dreams they had no doubts about.

I have been watching it happen skin to skin as well when first meetings built on *love* before skin became uncomfortable impossibiities. I know that many believe that love is the beginning of a good D/s relationship and I must take the more unpopular road here. I take it because in over 30 years I see the same record being played until the vinyl has long been scratched beyond any sound recognition.

Submission needs to know that Domination is in the control of the Dominant and the Dominant needs to know that they are in control~of the dreams and both.

In new relationships the Domination is sooooo often tempered because it is shadowed by the *love* but the submission is intensified because of the love. Do you see where I am going here?

Once the submissive sees that the Dominant is controlled by the *love* they see that the power they have been needing to give up remains in their hands.

Loving control is as beautiful as romantic love...more powerful...erotic...and open to better communication.

Stopping Myself here as it is a subject that I have been speaking about day after day for several months now trying to save possible hopes and dreams of those I care about in My real life..both Dommes and subs.

I am not saying there are not exceptions....but I am saying they are rare...unfortunately most people cannot see that they are not the exception.

Opinions are like assholes..and everyone has them..including Myself ~~~smile~~

The starting post of this thread, (which I have quoted), is such a valuable post, I am bumping it to the top. In such a short time we have gained many more new posters to this Forum, and I fear they may overlook, what I feel is an important topic for discussion.

Any comments or opinions?

 

[Little Girl]

I did miss it

And perhaps if I had read this post I would have been more realistic in my recent endeavors.... Thanks for bumping it to the top, it was still very good to read and I will use the information in the future.

Thanks for all the good advice and information that all of you have been so great about sharing, for the newbies it is always helpful to get input from more experienced people.

 

[Grvdigger]

Artful, thank You for bringing this back up. I am not quite sure what ShadowDream was saying but I am going to give My thoughts on it (maybe You have noticed I do that alot). I have seen many be in love with the greatest dom one week and moved on to another the next. Velco collars abound online. Why is this? there are a number of reasons, take your pick. As for love and D/s bdsm, it is possiable, thankfully gem and I seem to be one of the exceptions that ShadowsDream spoke of. It takes a great balance to do it. It is not easy and takes lots of work and I think this is why many fail. They want to rewards with out the work and as soon as they find that thier subs are turning to them not only for sexual needs but real world ones also, they run.

I may have missed Her point here and I hope She responds so I can be sure of what she was saying.

 

[artful]

Grvdigger,...

I may have missed Her point here and I hope She responds so I can be sure of what she was saying.

...I have the utmost respect for Shadows, and her ability to stimulate my thought processes, (not that I have a lot going on there), but she always causes me to look within myself. To seek MY inner truths, and look at them with a different perspective.

The *love* part of my relationship, was hard for me to face up to. Dream and I met online, and only for BDSM related pursuits. I can only speak for myself, but love,...does tend to cause me to be more lenient, than I otherwise have been in the past.

I think there are more than just one reason for it, but the main reason is, I don't want to *appear* as ~unloving~. I would rather appear as a loving person, *in*, control.

Can I still make difficult decisions? You betcha!
They are just harder for me to make. Am I aware of problems that need to be addressed, and tended to right away? I think so, (I don't miss much).

Do I handle them the same way as I would if I were not in love with her? No,...but I am learning to meld the two together. I could have her without her submission, but that is something I won't settle for.

Her submission is a *need* for me, but I will never attempt force to gain it. I want it on *my* terms, or not at all. I want her to give it freely, with her eyes wide open, understanding the committment, and trusting in my guidance.

I am the court, the judge and the jury. I know many will disagree with what I say, and that is their right, but it *is* me, and I would rather have nothing, or 100%.

 

[Siren]

 

[Ebonyfire]

D/s as a sexual drug

My opinion is this: that if d/s and sex become entwined like some drug, it can over shadow the purpose of a D/s relationship..the power exchange.

I have been accused more than once of not having love in my d/s relationships. However, I have to say my boys did not come to me looking for love, they wanted to be dominated. I have to always remember that.

If loves diminishes the relationship by making Me as the dominant less effective, then I have to pay attention to that.

If love becomes the controlling force, and not the dominance, a sub will soon get bored and lose interest, because it was D/s and not love that brought us together.

That does not mean there is an absence of feeling, it just is not in the driver's seat.

Ebony