The Slippery Slope

[catalina_francisco]

Lol, there is definitely some truth there. On the other hand, I think I'm quite afraid to get "lost" in a relationship, and not think it through first. I feel like I don't always make the best decisions, so I'm terrified of leaping without looking. It's all about balance I guess. Ya gotta get out there and live, but it's also good to sit around and philosophize sometimes.

I was more referring to those who will talk for years without ever dipping a toe or 10. I think everyone makes evaluations about their relationship as it progresses, but to try and theorize it to death before taking a step in the direction of doing often results in either never making that first step, or getting a big shock when reality is not how they analysed and intellectualised it was going to be. For me, I did thinking, talking, and researching, but not for years before deciding what it was I thought I needed and going out to explore and find that defined criteria....if I had waited too long I think it would have been too easy to jump into anything out of desperation/frustration or talk myself out of it completely, and I think there would have been a good possibility I would still be single and dreaming and analysing while life passed me by.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

hey either drift towards and eventually become full blown Master/slave, or the relationship falls apart

No. What I see is 9 times in 10 they drift towards M/s because the participants feel like they "should" and THEN they go explodie.

I know very very FEW M/s relationships of more than 3 years duration.

I know a lot of people who do varying levels of D/s and hang together but when the chips are down both parties are making the decisions to a large extent.

 

[intothewoods]

I was more referring to those who will talk for years without ever dipping a toe or 10. I think everyone makes evaluations about their relationship as it progresses, but to try and theorize it to death before taking a step in the direction of doing often results in either never making that first step, or getting a big shock when reality is not how they analysed and intellectualised it was going to be. For me, I did thinking, talking, and researching, but not for years before deciding what it was I thought I needed and going out to explore and find that defined criteria....if I had waited too long I think it would have been too easy to jump into anything out of desperation/frustration or talk myself out of it completely, and I think there would have been a good possibility I would still be single and dreaming and analysing while life passed me by.

Catalina

Yeah, I figured. I was just sort of riffing off what you said. I'm doing therapy right now and am all rambly like that.

 

[intothewoods]

I know a lot of people who do varying levels of D/s and hang together but when the chips are down both parties are making the decisions to a large extent.

That is actually the perfect way to describe the successful relationships I've seen in the scene.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The whole thread is nonsense. Its like positing a question of SHOULD EYES BE 50% BLUE? OR IS ADJUSTING MY HEIGHT A GOOD IDEA? HOW ABOUT MY RACE?

People who fret about what they are, are posers. Am I really Catholic, or maybe 25% Protestant?

 

[Rox_shybutcurious]

The whole thread is nonsense. Its like positing a question of SHOULD EYES BE 50% BLUE? OR IS ADJUSTING MY HEIGHT A GOOD IDEA? HOW ABOUT MY RACE?

People who fret about what they are, are posers. Am I really Catholic, or maybe 25% Protestant?

Oh that makes perfect sense because of course people never change, reassess, explore, learn, grow..... They just stay the same, stagnate in their ideas and opinions their whole lives.

 

[JMohegan]

The shift isn't necessarily a disregard for limits/etc, it becomes an issue of the submissive's personality/nature wishing to please (as his/her expression of self and ego) versus the Dominant's personality/nature of wishing to be pleased (his expression of self/ego), and the two growing more and more comfortable with one another. Eventually the two personalities/natures either collide or meld into one another, at which point the couple breaks up, or the dynamic shifts into full blown Master/slave relationship.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I will say there was enough uncertainty on my part to recognize a lack of chemistry and place him in the "interesting conversationalist/coffee date" catagory, instead of the "person I want to tie me up and ravish me" catagory. lol

It is an interesting hypothetical to me, though; how (or if) the dynamics shift as a D/s couple grow increasingly comfortable with one another...

For the record, I see nothing wrong with an academic interest in something - as long as those who hang out in the ivory tower don't pretend to speak on behalf of those who exist outside it.

If you want to continue your conversation with this guy, my suggestion is that you put forth ITW's query. What is his definition of M/s? Then follow up by asking him what sort of urges or needs one must have in order to embrace such a thing.

Personally I can't imagine why on god's green earth someone would conclude that time and increased comfort with a partner would make me want to start treating her like M/s property, as opposed to the D/s partner I had always cherished before. Or why I would one day be pleased with her independence regarding career, family, and friends, and then suddenly (or even gradually) become pleased with the idea of exerting control over such things.

 

[JMohegan]

No. What I see is 9 times in 10 they drift towards M/s because the participants feel like they "should" and THEN they go explodie.

I know very very FEW M/s relationships of more than 3 years duration.

I know a lot of people who do varying levels of D/s and hang together but when the chips are down both parties are making the decisions to a large extent.

This is largely my observation as well.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROX

I may be wrong. Our illustrious governor was recently annointed "Florida's First Black Governor" by the NAACP. So maybe people do change. He still looks white to me, but I mean, the NAACP never lies. Clinton underwent the same metamorphosis, and Hillary has made reference to her interracial marriage.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JMohegan

The phenomenon is called 'fashion.' People like to try different things.

 

[Northwoods_Dom]

Interesting premise, I find that in my current relationship, my wife/sub and I fluxuate between 50/50 more than I had really thought about. For lack of a better term, I guess the ebb and flow changes depending upon the day of the week. I cannot say for certain that she would ever give up that much power, nor can I say that I want all of it. I belive that in our vanilla side she controls far more of our lives than I do, but that too changes.
I love that she has a brilliant mind, and a bit of sass to her, as it makes the relationship so much more interesting.
I guess every relationship is a bit different, and could not be truly statisically measured to gain a true ratio.

 

[omniavincet]

Categories Categories

This thread has prompted me to finally make a comment about something I've seen a lot here on Lit. That is, as soon as someone posits the existence of a set of categories dealing with some facet of D/s, about half the people acknowledge them and make an effort to see themselves in a category and the other half point out how unique everyone is and how fruitless the notion of categorization is. Interesting to me, both sides have lots of useful things to say.

In this case i happen to agree with those who argue that CM's friend has mis-categorized or poorly categorized the D/s universe.

That being said, I do want to make a general point in defense of the usefulness of categories when talking about D/s or anything else. As a matter of brain functioning humans have a desperate and inescapable need to categorize. It helps us simplify the chaos out there and interpret our world. Just because no category or label can adequately describe a specific person's experience or person doesn't mean the category is no good. We do have to be careful how we use categories but we can't live without them. So I say three cheers for trying to categorize everybody and everything with the caveat that we should all criticize the hell of out them to make sure they don't suck.

OV

 

[omniavincet]

In my rather limited experience, I think it depends on what both the Dom/me and the sub hold most dear--the power exchange or the need for one another's company. Also, if, say, the Dom/me needs the power exchange most, and the sub needs the Dom/me as a person most, there are going to be issues.

Most relationships will fall apart eventually, no matter what. It's unusual for any relationship to last until one of the partners dies, and D/s relationships are no exception. I'd say the loss of the dynamic is a symptom of the problem, rather than the cause.

BiBunny, I think you've nailed a key point - seems much more likely to me that a D/s relationship will fall apart for any or all of the "normal" reasons and that the D/s side of things will crumble along with the overall relationship.

 

[omniavincet]

id have to agree. there is no relationship D/s or otherwise that stays the same. something has to change. its impossible for a succesful relationship to remain the same. you have to change, and whether that change brings you to 60/40, 90/10, or has you drift apart, its only natural.

Here here.

My wife and I have been married 16 years and together 22 - and we just got around to exploring the D/s scene over the past year. We have evolved in lots of ways and I can see that we're going to evolve D/s-wise too, but I can't imagine the need to go all out in a particular direction - our relationship flows and so will our approach to D/s.

 

[omniavincet]

The whole thread is nonsense. Its like positing a question of SHOULD EYES BE 50% BLUE? OR IS ADJUSTING MY HEIGHT A GOOD IDEA? HOW ABOUT MY RACE?

People who fret about what they are, are posers. Am I really Catholic, or maybe 25% Protestant?

Are they 100% posers, or just 25%??? You know how you can never be sure with posers.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[midwestyankee]

Like a few others here, my first reaction was to note how this slippery slope theory resembled the way that my buddies and I used to theorize about having sex with a mature woman - when we were fourteen! Note that the "ivory tower" need not be merely academic.

That said, I can see how, on a theoretical level at least, it would be possible for a relationship dynamic to shift over time. I see this as a large-scale, relationship-wide analog to the possibility of a sub or bottom letting previously hard limits become a little more pliable over time. At first, one might think that golden showers were a hard limit but after some time with a trusted partner that perception could change. A year or so later in that same relationship, perhaps a previously hard limit of no needle play or no gagging might be relaxed. So just as one's physical limits might shift over time, becoming ever more liberal and relaxed and including more and more of the available spectrum of activities, so too might one's overall relationship dynamic take on a more and more skewed power sharing.

But that's just theory. We all change over time and when we're in a relationship our changes occur within the dynamic and the context of the relationship. Plenty of people change quite a lot over time and others do not. Theory that applies in large groups doesn't always apply neatly to individual cases.

But I can also see where this would make for a fun afternoon or evening of discussion - theory can be like that.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

OMNIAVINCET

Around here it all depends on what theyre wearing. I'm suspicious 99% of them clock-out at 5 and are vanilla until clocking-in the next day. It's likely.

 

[JMohegan]

Like a few others here, my first reaction was to note how this slippery slope theory resembled the way that my buddies and I used to theorize about having sex with a mature woman - when we were fourteen! Note that the "ivory tower" need not be merely academic.

That said, I can see how, on a theoretical level at least, it would be possible for a relationship dynamic to shift over time. I see this as a large-scale, relationship-wide analog to the possibility of a sub or bottom letting previously hard limits become a little more pliable over time. At first, one might think that golden showers were a hard limit but after some time with a trusted partner that perception could change. A year or so later in that same relationship, perhaps a previously hard limit of no needle play or no gagging might be relaxed. So just as one's physical limits might shift over time, becoming ever more liberal and relaxed and including more and more of the available spectrum of activities, so too might one's overall relationship dynamic take on a more and more skewed power sharing.

But that's just theory. We all change over time and when we're in a relationship our changes occur within the dynamic and the context of the relationship. Plenty of people change quite a lot over time and others do not. Theory that applies in large groups doesn't always apply neatly to individual cases.

But I can also see where this would make for a fun afternoon or evening of discussion - theory can be like that.

Ha, ha, ha!

This is a great post, and not just because the first paragraph is so damn entertaining!

I agree with what you wrote, but would like to point out that it is radically different from the theory presented in the opening post.

Liberal use of words like "possible" and "might" render your altered version of the theory valid. The absolute either/or in the opening post renders that theory obvious bunk. (Recidiva's point, and spot on.)

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I'll admit straight off that Master and I are relatively new to BDSM but I have recently made the change from LDR sub to co-habiting, 24/7 contractually owned slave.

For us, although there is a huge power exchange, the one thing we are agreed on is that there is no responsibility exchange. Master makes the final decisions but that does not mean that I am absolved of responsibility while he worries about all the important stuff. We are a team. Neither one will watch the other struggle for the sake of observing M/s protocol.

I think that people can get carried away with their roles sometimes. I know that some M/s dynamics mean that the slave has no input whatsoever with wages, finances or anything but Master and I are not like that. He will not make an important decison without consulting me and I will suport him wholeheartedly if he opts for a choice that I wouldn't have made.

In many ways we're still honeymooners but I do think that it's a good place to start.

 

[midwestyankee]

Ha, ha, ha!

This is a great post, and not just because the first paragraph is so damn entertaining!

I agree with what you wrote, but would like to point out that it is radically different from the theory presented in the opening post.

Liberal use of words like "possible" and "might" render your altered version of the theory valid. The absolute either/or in the opening post renders that theory obvious bunk. (Recidiva's point, and spot on.)

Thanks.

My point wasn't to agree or disagree with the theory in the original post so much as to show one possible explanation for how the behavior that CM's friend said he'd observed might come to pass.

I use "might" and "possible" a lot in my posts because of my academic training. There is no such thing as an absolute truth; there is only observation, and deduction repeated over time under varying circumstances. Anyone who claims to have an absolute truth is either a fool or a liar.

Possibly.

 

[Homburg]

Meh, M/s does nothing for me. I don't dislike it, but it does not fire my engines. as a result, I do not see a move towards that in my relationship with "v".

Buuut, I am no fortune teller. Our needs may change. *shrug*

 

[Recidiva]

Thanks.

My point wasn't to agree or disagree with the theory in the original post so much as to show one possible explanation for how the behavior that CM's friend said he'd observed might come to pass.

I use "might" and "possible" a lot in my posts because of my academic training. There is no such thing as an absolute truth; there is only observation, and deduction repeated over time under varying circumstances. Anyone who claims to have an absolute truth is either a fool or a liar.

Possibly.

I love this sentence in this context for so many reasons:

"There's no such thing as an absolute truth."

With you on the might and possible. I'd simply change it to "It's possible there's no such thing as an absolute truth."

Removes the punch though. That's a shame, 'cause I like punch.

I love nuance but it keeps me from being on so many soapboxes.

 

[midwestyankee]

I love this sentence in this context for so many reasons:

"There's no such thing as an absolute truth."

With you on the might and possible. I'd simply change it to "It's possible there's no such thing as an absolute truth."

Removes the punch though. That's a shame, 'cause I like punch.

Thanks, but the statement that there is no such thing as an absolute truth is not an hypothesis.

Now, there are things in math that are seen as absolute (products of the operations on natural numbers, i.e. 3X2=6, for example) but math is an artificial system (while it may have some of its origins in our mental structures, it's still artificial) and not subject to the same kinds of uncertainty as our attempts to explain the natural world. That's where doubt and uncertainty are the rule and not the exception. It's that untidy natural world that causes all the problems.

Now, back to the original idea. I wonder if the theorist with whom CM shared cocktails had an explanation for his theory. Some see a problem and ask "Why" and others see a problem and ask "How did the train get to Philadelphia in the first place?"

 

[Homburg]

Some see a problem and ask "Why" and others see a problem and ask "How did the train get to Philadelphia in the first place?"

Isn't it more appropriate to ask why the train would want to be in Philly at all?


*hides from HottieMama*