Is there a difference between a master and a lover?

[rida]

Dusting this thread out from the past

Um yes.

I don't have romantic soul-merging stare into your eyes sex with my slave, cat, car, or any other belongings. Toy with a slave, sure, use sexually, put the pinch on till we're closer than I could ever get by fucking someone, yes. There are upsides.

A lot of people have no problem overlapping these things. When I'm *in love* in the romantic sense with someone, I can boss them around in bed, but I lose any interest in ownership - that whole notion is completely incompatible with my poly hands-off what's best for both of us fundamentally more egalitarian approach to romantic love. I don't want to possess my partner, that makes them not-partner. I like M's pliability and willingness to please me and enjoyment of being manhandled in bed, but I can't really see myself enjoying a world in which nothing is on the table for him to reject.

I do want to possess my slave, clearly.

When I own someone I find my intimacy in sadism and platonic connection. They're two different needs for me, ill served by trying to make everything fit in one container.

May I ask you how is your view on lover VS Master when you are on the pyl end of the equation?

The reason I'm asking is because it seems that it is more common for the PYLs to make the distinction than it is for the pyls.

Before letting this thread die a natural death, I'll give one more shot at answering this question for myself.

At the risk of sounding really sophmoric, I'm gonna take a trip back to Professor Sinaiko's philosophy class.

For me, a lover is the descendant of Dionysis: spontaneous, lustful, in love and in love with being in love. He or she joins in spirit with others until they have become one, governed by the unpredictable fugue of their shared infatuation and desire.

The master stands alone. He is not spontaneous, and certainly not in love with being in love. He is driven by the certainty of his own judgments and rightness. His command may serve his own or his lover's desire, but he is never governed by his desire. Who cares what he is governed by? It is of no relevance. The only thing relevant is that he governs.

Yes, I think I like your distinction.
I do not see the two role necessarily exclusive of each other, but I can also see why it can be difficult from a PYL perspective to have them merge and not ruin the purity of each one.

 

[Albee]

Dusting this thread out from the past


Yes, I think I like your distinction.
I do not see the two role necessarily exclusive of each other, but I can also see why it can be difficult from a PYL perspective to have them merge and not ruin the purity of each one.

Hi Rida.

Thank you for bringing the thread back after so much time.

My wife, at her center, is a very hardcore submissive. We began in a fairly conventional sexual relationship, with all the reciprocal give and take of a modern eighties couple. But, over the past 20 years, we have both learned that at the core of all her sexual desires is submission.

She tells me that she would like to merge that submission into a relationship infused with classic romantic love.

The M/s relationship is terrifically romantic. It can be infinitely devoted, hyper-sexualized, and lived at the precipice of risk.

But, for me, the M/s relationship is neither mutual nor spontaneous. The esctacy of the slave might be spontaneous and surprising. But the Master never offers the vulnerability to allow his own spontaneity.

The slave must never get what she wants except by the nobless oblige of the Master or by fortunate coincidence.

She is a fucking slave.

Like all slaves she must yearn hopefully for freedom and compassion.

Only to be inevitably yanked back by the yolk of the Master.

 

[Tawny_Temptress]

Only some men make me feel submissive andoddly enough the ones that do dont 'act' dominant. So, yes, I think there is a difference.

 

[Adakgirl]

But, for me, the M/s relationship is neither mutual nor spontaneous. The esctacy of the slave might be spontaneous and surprising. But the Master never offers the vulnerability to allow his own spontaneity.

The slave must never get what she wants except by the nobless oblige of the Master or by fortunate coincidence.

Well then, in my opinion you have it all twisted up and confused in your mind. The relationship itself is of course... not spontaneous, but should be built upon a solid foundation of mutual love, trust, communication and understanding.

The relationship has to be a mutual one because without her consensual submission to you , you cannot take that submission and use it to Dominate her or be her Master. In turn without your consensual Dominance over her, your taking control of her, she cannot submit to being your slave. So the relationship from the beginning IS a mutual one.

Being yourself and allowing yourself to act spontaneously when it comes to sex has nothing to do with showing your vulnerability as a Master. If a Master smothered his spontaneous urges and ideas because he was afraid it would show weakness, then he would be boring as hell and I would say he had no clue as to what the scope of being a Master can include. No Master I know limits himself in such a manner, because their strong Dominant personalities prevents them from worrying about whether they are showing weakness or not. The strong Dominant can easily express weakness yet know for a fact that they still hold and maintain their Dominant place within the relationship.

Also basically the submissive IS getting what she wants already, simply by being your slave and submitting to your desires..don't you understand that? In addition there is nothing wrong with a Master granting a slave what she asks for and desires. If she asks with the proper respect of course. Just because you are her Master does not mean you can't ever give her what she wants , that is YOUR decision to make, you don't HAVE to deny her unless you WANT to. It is perfectly ok for you to let her have what she wants.

I think your set ideas of what being a Master is all about, are limiting and binding you up, causing you to feel uncomfortable in your role. When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. You can change the way you view how your M/s relationship should or should not be.

 

[Nymphomaniacal]

According to dictionary.com:



A lover is someone who loves. So, as far as I'm concerned, if you love your PYL they are your lover.

This is actually a really good description. For me my Master is my lover as well. He takes me places in my head and earns so much trust from me that its more than hes just a friend. You tell your Master so much about the inner workings of what you like sexually that some people would blanch at, but he wouldn't so much as bat an eyelash as well as the trust that he would never hurt me.

Sure there is a very BIG distinction between when he is using me as his slave and when hes making love to me. Big difference, but both have their dynamics and places.

Again, depends on the relationship.

 

[Netzach]

Dusting this thread out from the past



May I ask you how is your view on lover VS Master when you are on the pyl end of the equation?

The reason I'm asking is because it seems that it is more common for the PYLs to make the distinction than it is for the pyls.

On the pyl end of the equation I have had two approaches. One is that I despise the thought of being a lover to the Master (gender nonspecific) and in fact I found any kind of sexual overture that felt non-objectifying very yucky. To the point where I'm not submitting, but enacting fetishism, if that makes sense. Like if the person who just caned me wanted to tongue kiss passionately after, I'm outta there, stat. Ew. I wanted the objectification, which most hetero men think means stick a dick in me, which is fucking boring after a while, and a few women understand means "treat me like the color of the wall when you're not using me" but often can't sustain that for more than a minute.

I was a handful. You can see why I gave up on this project for so long.

Then there's T. Who's a lover so loved and a presence so fluid and so known and so comfortable, that I'm comfortable leading or being led. M has the same trust level and H has the same trust level with me, and it's not a question of more or less love. T's the one I respond to with the full range because he desires the full range and knows what to do with the bottom part to any degree. If you ask me if he's my owner or lover though, he's my lover, and between us there's no "no" other than the limits of circumstance and fate. I don't have a PYL but an exception to all rules. And he still needs to be bossed around as his release valve every now and again. I can tell when. Submitting to me is part of the trust banking activity, had he not been fluid and switchable and permeable to me, I could never be to him like this.

Our play is very 101 level vanilla dabbler level, but to me it's exciting enough and charged enough because of the connection and emotional stakes.

 

[Recidiva]

I think there's a difference in the sense that the power dynamic is set and agreed upon and expected.

Lover is much more equal and the power dynamic is not set. In a lover situation, whoever is best at something or good at negotiating something, can be the one in charge.

I don't think there's an essential difference so much as there's an essential difference between pasta and pizza. Both yummy. One's expected to be prepared smaller and boiled. One's bigger and baked.

Both yummy, but a bad pizza and a bad pasta still suck. Good pasta or good pizza both good.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Being yourself and allowing yourself to act spontaneously when it comes to sex has nothing to do with showing your vulnerability as a Master. If a Master smothered his spontaneous urges and ideas because he was afraid it would show weakness, then he would be boring as hell and I would say he had no clue as to what the scope of being a Master can include. No Master I know limits himself in such a manner, because their strong Dominant personalities prevents them from worrying about whether they are showing weakness or not. The strong Dominant can easily express weakness yet know for a fact that they still hold and maintain their Dominant place within the relationship.

Speaking as one who greatly prefers the dominant role in sexual relationships. I think one is (at least I am) showing one's (my) vulnerability simply by requiring to be master. Someone who was really solid in themselves could play dominant or submissive interchangeably; if someone requires always to take one role or the other (as I do) then to me that shows a weakness.

The fact that it's a weakness doesn't stop it being fun, of course. Nor does it mean you're not a worthy person. Most adults carry some psychological scarring, and, indeed, in my experience, people who are scarred are more complex, more interesting, more fun to be with, and tend to be more compassionate and less judgemental. To me there's nothing to be shamed of in being scarred, and knowing it, and owning to it; there would be more to be ashamed of in hiding it behind a mask and denying it.

I'm not a tyrant or domineering or cruel or a control freak in real life; I just play one when having sex with particular others who have the reciprocal kink; and, as I've got older, I've realised I'm not interested in having sex with people who don't have the reciprocal kink.

It's play, and it's fun, and it's at least affectionate if not loving. And that seems OK to me.

I think your set ideas of what being a Master is all about, are limiting and binding you up, causing you to feel uncomfortable in your role. When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. You can change the way you view how your M/s relationship should or should not be.

Strong agreement.

 

[Mistress_Belladonna]

Lover vs Master

Speaking as one who greatly prefers the dominant role in sexual relationships. I think one is (at least I am) showing one's (my) vulnerability simply by requiring to be master. Someone who was really solid in themselves could play dominant or submissive interchangeably; if someone requires always to take one role or the other (as I do) then to me that shows a weakness.

The fact that it's a weakness doesn't stop it being fun, of course. Nor does it mean you're not a worthy person. Most adults carry some psychological scarring, and, indeed, in my experience, people who are scarred are more complex, more interesting, more fun to be with, and tend to be more compassionate and less judgemental. To me there's nothing to be shamed of in being scarred, and knowing it, and owning to it; there would be more to be ashamed of in hiding it behind a mask and denying it.

I'm not a tyrant or domineering or cruel or a control freak in real life; I just play one when having sex with particular others who have the reciprocal kink; and, as I've got older, I've realised I'm not interested in having sex with people who don't have the reciprocal kink.

It's play, and it's fun, and it's at least affectionate if not loving. And that seems OK to me.

I don't know that I find a person who is solidly in one camp or the other as being weak. Just very firm in their mindset. That can be a strength. What I find fascinating is that a persons greatest strengths can also be their biggest weaknesses.

I want to be a lover to my pet, partner, toy... whatever I happen to call them, even if they want a harsh domme "Master". This is my particular "kink", I suppose. I can be more traditionally domme, at times, but when I want to be and feel the time is right. Isn't that what being a Master/Mistress is all about?

Perhaps by some people's standards, that's not Domme or Mistress material, but I think there are lots of different styles that work around here for different subs needs. I'd be a masochists' nightmare, for example! ;-)

(I've had people approach me to be "domme" to them, but then they want to tell me what they want and how they want it. No, no, no, NO! My whip, my rules! Want me to be your Mistress, expect to be my bitch, even if that means I call you "sweetheart" and say nice things to you.... bitch! ;-))

 

[Netzach]

But, for me, the M/s relationship is neither mutual nor spontaneous. The esctacy of the slave might be spontaneous and surprising. But the Master never offers the vulnerability to allow his own spontaneity.

Oh dear. THAT would be slavery.
Fortunately it's the capriciousness that my property thrives with. Because he is a fucking slave and can therefore keep my books and hand me a tissue for my sobbing just as dandily as be my doormat.

Interestingly the yearning is in the opposite direction. For more enslavement, toward me, perpetually separated by my cruelty as much as I can employ it.

 

[rida]

Albee & Netzach, thank you for taking your time to reply.

I will be back with comments ... just being a bit strapped with time at the moment.

 

[tkvh4u2]

Well, that's it. Is there?

Just adding my .02, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive unless the involved parties want it that way. I absolutely adore my Dom he provides me with friendship and discipline.