Love and BDSM...

[eastern sun]

how long was that process? I know it's different for everyone, but I really can't see myself ever being properly submissive. I'm too... bullish and stubborn I think. but he just smiles and looks at me like he's thinking "you say that NOW... just you wait!"

My husband and I have been together 25 years, and I'm still not properly submissive. I am, however, fully enslaved.

 

[where]

.....

 

[eastern sun]

Ok there's a mind fuck... if bdsm is a continuum as I understand it, you can be a non-submissive slave? are you like Spartacus?

I wouldn't consider myself non-submissive. I'm just not "properly submissive".

Slavery has an element of coercion and captivity that is missing in submission, in my opinion. However, I don't know of anyone who is not submissive who would voluntarily sign-on for slavery. Though, actually, it's not inconceivable. (It's just a helluva lot of work for the dominant party.)



I'm so caught up in Derrida at the moment, I'm not even buying the idea of the continuum today. It sounds too organized to be true.

 

[where]

I wouldn't consider myself non-submissive. I'm just not "properly submissive".

Slavery has an element of coercion and captivity that is missing in submission, in my opinion. However, I don't know of anyone who is not submissive who would voluntarily sign-on for slavery. Though, actually, it's not inconceivable. (It's just a helluva lot of work for the dominant party.)



I'm so caught up in Derrida at the moment, I'm not even buying the idea of the continuum today. It sounds too organized to be true.

ahhh it's all so complicated and new to me, I like continuums, they help me think logically (ha!). Had no idea they were associated with Derrida. I'm currently trying to avoid reading Foucault.

 

[Netzach]

I'm going to be the lone voice in the wilderness on this one, but for me, D/s and romantic love are quite comfortable bedfellows, but M/s doesn't work.

M/s and *platonic* love are more suited. A very strong platonic love that those who haven't experienced it don't understand at all. Romantic love is really held up as the be-all-end-all in this culture, so when I say "It's platonic" people figure I have to be missing out or holding back in some way that prohibits me from real M/s blah blah.

I couldn't experience M/s and romantic love. They're not compatible for me, and I don't understand how they are for others. The quandary Bette Coquette alludes to is how I feel in M/s mixing *romantic attachment* and it never works for me in the all or nothing I own you of it.

I don't "fall in love with" my cat or my dog or my car. I might love those things and care for them, and ultimately I'm responsible for their condition.

The negotiated nature of D/s suits my romantic feelings more honestly. I don't *mind* being periodically totally pussy whipped by M at all. Real romantic love will absolutely do that to you. This will create a level of chaos in my M/s that I don't find conducive.

 

[Homburg]

I'm going to be the lone voice in the wilderness on this one, but for me, D/s and romantic love are quite comfortable bedfellows, but M/s doesn't work.

You may be the lone voice around here, but I've heard this before. I've heard it more from Fdoms than Mdoms, but not by a huge amount.

Personally, I think it is all possible. D/s, T/b, M/s, whatever can all be experienced whether or not love is involved or not. For me, personally, ownership is not gonna happen without some form of love. It's too much work. If we're friends, I'll play, but I'm just not going to be motivated enough to own.

I blame my cock. While I've fucked friends before, the only satisfying sex I've had has had love involved. That said, I don't find M/s to be a romantic concept. It doesn't make me all gooey inside. Neither does D/s. The relationship itself is romantic, or not, and the D/S or M/s content has no bearing. I'll get all Awwwww over the act of surrender and many of the traits and emotions expressed, but the structure itself is just another way to relate/fuck.

But, as I've said before, I use the word "slave" because it turns them on. Likewise, they use "master" because it turns them on. There has been some emotive bleed-over, but those words are primarily for them. I have, for example, gotten fond of "Yes, Master," and "My Owner," but it is a contextual thing.

 

[eastern sun]

ahhh it's all so complicated and new to me, I like continuums, they help me think logically (ha!). Had no idea they were associated with Derrida. I'm currently trying to avoid reading Foucault.

Foucault's next.

As I understand it, Derrida is interested in the interplay between "binary opposites," which could be considered the two polar ends of a given continuum I suppose. How human beings keep trying to centralize meaning around one end, essentially centralizing it's power, while the other end becomes marginalized and it's power is dissipated. (Until you centralize that end, and the slave revolts. )

The conclusion - truth lies in the dynamic inter-play of all these opposites, not in some eternal fixed God-given pattern.

(I've only been reading him for a week or so, though. If I'm wrong, please correct me.)

Which is related to this thread, how?

The love my husband and I feel for each other is totally connected to that fact that we are able to successfully experience with each other the peculiar M/s dynamics that we both desire. And, it's also related to the fact that we've spent 25 years moving through this world at each other's side, a rich, complicated and often bonding experience.

 

[eastern sun]

M/s and *platonic* love are more suited. A very strong platonic love that those who haven't experienced it don't understand at all. Romantic love is really held up as the be-all-end-all in this culture, so when I say "It's platonic" people figure I have to be missing out or holding back in some way that prohibits me from real M/s blah blah.

I think this is interesting, Netzach.

Before we had children, my neighbors assumed that my husband and I were brother and sister. When I met him, I was not physically, nor romantically, attracted at all.

It was only months after we began interacting with each other as colleagues (he was my trainer), and then became friends, that he literally "turned on" his sexuality with me. I was completely hooked from the first glimpse.

If people are meeting at clubs or play parties or after chatting online, this sexuality is already on the table. But if you're meeting in the context of work or school, there's that moment when you have to decide to reveal yourself.

I wonder how often the context of a more "platonic love" feels right to people.

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

As a Top, I can not quite connect with my bottom unless there is some kind of emotional attachment, period. It needn't be love, in my personal experience~it just needs to be based on trust, respect and mutual goodwill. What this means in the long run is that if I play with someone, I am already predisposed to care about them. They are giving me what I need to feel whole. This is why I have a small stable of boys and girls that I can play with when I am not in a loving relationship based on the Daddy/baby girl physical (Toppish) dynamic. Just the physicality of playing eases me and helps me to relax.

All of the above being said, I do prefer to have a loving relationship with my s/o. The best time (for me) in recent history is when I was with my baby mama. Every part of me was fulfilled, not just the slightly sadistic Top. Being in love is a blessing and it enriches everything I do. I can not imagine going through my life without having a baby girl who is just for me but, until I find the one that will fit into my life, I will continue to play with my girls and boys because I care about them and they in turn care about me. It's not perfect but it does connect me to others when I most need it.

I don't think you need to be IN LOVE to feel a connection, but I think that the best connections eventually turn romantic. At least, that's how it felt to me when I met Trinnie.

 

[rosco rathbone]

http://books.google.com/books?id=lMlCM2OK4l4C&q=forget+foucault&dq=forget+foucault&cd=1

 

[eastern sun]

http://books.google.com/books?id=lMlCM2OK4l4C&q=forget+foucault&dq=forget+foucault&cd=1

I'll admit it. I'm whoring it. There's money on the table. And I'm dancing to its tune.

 

[Keroin]

I've experienced BDSM with and without love. Both enjoyable. I hesitate to compare them because they are so very different. There's an element of objectification inherent to non-love BDSM that I find appealing. But having a soul mate to go eat ice cream with after a good session also rings my bells.

I like where I am now - in love with a long time partner - but if I were to suddenly find myself single I think I'd steer clear of the love boat for awhile. I like novelty.

I'll take one of every flavour, thanks.

 

[where]

Foucault's next.

As I understand it, Derrida is interested in the interplay between "binary opposites," which could be considered the two polar ends of a given continuum I suppose. How human beings keep trying to centralize meaning around one end, essentially centralizing it's power, while the other end becomes marginalized and it's power is dissipated. (Until you centralize that end, and the slave revolts. )

The conclusion - truth lies in the dynamic inter-play of all these opposites, not in some eternal fixed God-given pattern.

(I've only been reading him for a week or so, though. If I'm wrong, please correct me.)

Which is related to this thread, how?

The love my husband and I feel for each other is totally connected to that fact that we are able to successfully experience with each other the peculiar M/s dynamics that we both desire. And, it's also related to the fact that we've spent 25 years moving through this world at each other's side, a rich, complicated and often bonding experience.

meh... I've spent years managing to avoid him, unfortunately my super is very into foucault, so I have little choice.

/hijack

http://books.google.com/books?id=lMlCM2OK4l4C&q=forget+foucault&dq=forget+foucault&cd=1

I wish!

I'll admit it. I'm whoring it. There's money on the table. And I'm dancing to its tune.

you sick and twisted individual!

 

[LMs_ds]

Put me in the "Not in Love" group

I think there's a distinction between "love" and "emotional bonding" but that they're often confused as being one and the same. I also believe that "love" and "lust" are often confused.

When LM and I first met, we told each other that we didn't want love to be a part of this. We weren't here (in our relationship) for love - we didn't want or need another lover. BTDT. That's true more than 15 years later. In our minds "love" comes with strings and restrictions that we don't want. I know that isn't so for everyone but it is for us.

We're very much emotionally bonded -our M/s relationship is filled with deep caring, immense respect, honesty and understanding (with a good deal of lust for one another thrown in.)

Love would muck that up.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I just read Evil Geoff's account of SELF. He's describing my experiences, too-- back about ten years ago, when I lived in Chicago and IML was a hop on and off the subway. That's where I explored most of my BDSM tendencies, in the company of a neighborhood of enthusiastic queers, and once a year, with a couple thousand men in their Sunday best leather.

And that's where the love is for me, in my tribe. That's what I need to get back. Yep.

 

[sb2009]

I recently had an experience that wasn't with my husband - it wasn't *sexual* but it involved some play, etc and while it was in a setting that wasn't very intimate...I can say that it brought out different feelings.

I loved it. It was a total rush. Part of that rush was that she didn't have the love connection with me (we are friends, she certainly cares about me LOL she doens't wuv me that way) that my husband has so I had a bit of the feeling that "hey, if she wants to really lay into me she will and she might really give it to me good...

and while my husband does really do quite a good job of the ass beating, it was very different and I was quite exhilerated.

 

[MasterPhoenix]

OK, this one opens up a can of worms for me.

As long timers may recall I used to post on here with my (now former) submissive, and there were times, especially at first that we were a bit sickly sweet. (Apologies for that, by the way.) But, we had a very effective power exchange relationship that blended love as well as M/s.

Last summer I had a submissive I wasn't "in love" with. I did care about her quite a bit, but as things deteriorated it was kind of a meh thing. We had great times, and it turned out that we just had different needs. No harm no foul kind of thing.

The point of it for me is that there was something extra special about the paradigm where love was involved.

Meanwhile, I have a potential new slave, and I am not looking to be "in love."

From experience, it can go either way. There is something special about the in love, but I don't see it as an uber-ideal.

 

[fuckmeat]

I know I am loved, very much. I also know that (to my shame a lot of the time) I am not actually the sort of person who needs traditional, romantic love woven into my M/s dynamic. It's lovely when it happens but I don't always feel comfortable with it or worthy of it. At the same time, it makes perfect sense to me that our dynamic should be governed by G's mood and if she's feeling romantic then she has every right to express that with me. There are times when she orders me not to do chores or she chooses to reward/pamper me somehow and it always feels to me like a temporary suspension of our M/s dynamic, like a time-out. To her I know it's all part of the same thing and she has as an equal right to treat her property with utter disregard or even cruelly/violently when it suits her.

I will admit that Mistress's romantic impulses add to her general unpredictability and capriciousness, which is something I love in a PYL. To be 'rewarded' or to 'earn' being spoiled and snuggled is basically an alien concept to me. I'll nod and smile but at my core, I don't buy it. If it's a desire of Mistress's for her own pleasure though, that makes perfect sense. There isn't really much in the way of punishment/reward with us because Mistress is not the kind of woman who is consistent enough for that to work. What pleases her on one day (or even at one hour of one day) will not do so another time when her mood and needs are different. She likes moving the goalposts on me and making sure I can't easily predict how she will respond to a particular act of service or devotion. She likes to keep me striving and I couldn't really do that if I know all the 'rules' of our dynamic and the positive/negative consequences remained consistent.

Now she's in very poor health, Mistress's moods are volatile. I know she deeply appreciates the care she receives from me but I also know she resents needing that care at all equally deeply. Sometimes she can be a good patient, other times she's as petulant and contrary as a cosseted child. She can behave differently towards me than how her relatives expect her to conduct herself and I think that does help. We have hugs and tears and 'I love yous' but the slave-bond is never quite as strong for me during those times. I know that I need slavery a lot more than I need love. If Mistress stopped loving me tomorrow, I would still be utterly devoted to her.

Since she has been ill though, we've lost many aspects of our dynamic, sexual play being one of them. I miss those things very much. I think (if it's not too weird or derogatory of love to say so) that we've fallen back on romantic expressions of love for want of our standard MO as a couple. Her love for me used to be savage. It used to be thrusting me through my pain barrier, humiliating me into a blubbering pool of self loathing, wringing the best service and sexual use from me. She used to be passionate with the kind of venom and violence that would have most people calling the police. To us, it was as close as we'd ever get to true love. Now that she can't inflict all that on me and I can't suffer it all for her, we've shifted into a more vanilla concept of love. It's not who we really are though, it's the dying embers of what we were to one another. It's just all we have left now and so romantic love has taken on a new significance for us that it never had before.

Hope all that makes sense.

 

[Cattypuss]

Fuckmeat, I find that level of honesty and insight very moving.

Thank you for posting.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

When my submissive was just an object to torture and humiliate, that was easy.

I loved it. It was a total rush. Part of that rush was that she didn't have the love connection with me (we are friends, she certainly cares about me LOL she doens't wuv me that way) that my husband has so I had a bit of the feeling that "hey, if she wants to really lay into me she will and she might really give it to me good...

This raises a few questions.

I'm reminded of this thread by HottieMama a while back. http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=678435

My reply in that thread:

When you are with someone you are not emotionally attached to then its just easier to be sadistic and not care.

When you love and care about someone then it gets harder. That instinct to protect what is yours comes in to play. I think that's why he wants another girl to play with. The other girl isn't his so he can be mean, sadistic, and cause all the pain he wants because he doesn't love and care about her.

Can love change a PYL and actually hinder a BDSM relationship?

Can love change a pyl in a way that hinders a BDSM relationship?

 

[Seurat]

Can love change a PYL and actually hinder a BDSM relationship?

Can love change a pyl in a way that hinders a BDSM relationship?

Yup. Wiped out the BDSM aspect of one of my relationships completely. It's what drove me to write.

 

[satindesire]

*Snip*
Hope all that makes sense.

It takes a lot of bravery to be so vulnerable on the internet. I would hug you if I could.

You are swiftly becoming one of my favorite posters on this site, sweetie.

 

[fuckmeat]

Fuckmeat, I find that level of honesty and insight very moving.

Thank you for posting.

It takes a lot of bravery to be so vulnerable on the internet. I would hug you if I could.

You are swiftly becoming one of my favorite posters on this site, sweetie.

Thanks

ETA: Honestly, this is the only place I can talk about her like this, about us. It helps.

 

[Black_Bunny]

Can love change a PYL and actually hinder a BDSM relationship?

Can love change a pyl in a way that hinders a BDSM relationship?

Talking from a Sadist/Masochist relationship, I'd say not unless you let it.

I asked my Dominant how he could find pleasure in hurting me. He said that he had caused the pain to himself before, and so knew the pleasure one could get from it, so he found great pleasure in being able to 'give' that pleasure to me. Especially since we have discovered how easily I can get 'high' from his whipping, he knows that he is doing something amazing for me that nobody else is capable of doing, not even myself. It takes a lot of forethought and effort and hard work to give me this pleasure, and I don't think he'd bother doing that if he didn't love me. And while he gets some pleasure out of it, I'm sure most of the pleasure is mine, so it's a very 'giving' thing on his side, and giving as opposed to taking is a sign of love.

Also, I don't think I'd be able to achieve that high if I didn't have the trust and respect for him that comes with love. I can't get Joe Blow off the street to whip me and have me floating.

The only negative I can see to my loving my Dominant is that I'm becoming increasingly needy.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Love good.

D/s good.

Love+D/s very good.