Undefinable D/s relationships.

[Betticus]

When one is examining the typical D/s relationship as it stands with definitions does anyone have any experience or thoughts on cross boundary relationships.

From M/s all the way through Daddy/little girl all at the same time.

At first glance it may seem to be confusing but I think most relationships defy strict definition. Such as, does your Master baby you when you are sick or hurt? When he/she's hurt or down do you change your submissive dynamic enough to support him till he's better?

How many little girl slaves are out there?

 

[VelvetDarkness]

When one is examining the typical D/s relationship as it stands with definitions does anyone have any experience or thoughts on cross boundary relationships.

From M/s all the way through Daddy/little girl all at the same time.

At first glance it may seem to be confusing but I think most relationships defy strict definition. Such as, does your Master baby you when you are sick or hurt? When he/she's hurt or down do you change your submissive dynamic enough to support him till he's better?

How many little girl slaves are out there?

I don't really identify with D/g relationships but Master and I do shift roles according to need. Although he is the decision maker, he needs my love, acceptance and support. If Master is going through a tough time we view my love, support and advice as an extension of service. I also am perfectly capable of conducting myself as he would wish even when Master is too pre-occupied to breathe down my neck and ensure that I do. At the same time, if I am ill or stressed and need support, Master will do so wholeheartedly. He will demand less of me at these times because he has no interest in setting me tasks that I may well fail at.

This does not mean that Master accepts less than my best. My best is a variable quantity based on my circumstances. In the same way I seek to self manage when he is less able to attend to my every query. If Master is unwell I see no reason to trouble him for authority more than necessary. We are both content for me to act as I believe he would wish me too. The details are ironed out after whatever crisis has passed and when the next one hits I have a better idea of Master's expectations.

Is any of this relevant Betticious?

 

[Betticus]

Is any of this relevance Betticus?

It's all relevant. Thanks.

 

[Netzach]

I guess most people pretty much know how I present myself. I'm not a little girl, I'm an adult woman and one to be tangled with not lightly.

Take all that, right. I like to make him happy. Tiger on a leash, all that jazz.

 

[HottieMama]

"Little girl slave..." Interesting choice of words. i never quite put them together in that way before.

i have always felt that my relationship is different than some because we do have both dynamics of M/s and D/g. i can't explain it in concrete terms. It is quite simply what works for us. He knows what i need at any given moment and provides it...be it firm and strict or gentle and more "emotional." It just "flows" for us...and feels like the most natural thing in the world.

(i'm sure that was of no help, Betticus...but i really can't find the words to explain the how or why...)

 

[His_pita]

I agree that most relationships do defy strict definitions because of the limitations of definitions, and the fact that humans are complex.

I've stated it before that if I have to stick a label on myself then I'm a little girl submissive slave. We are M/s, D/g, and D/s all rolled into one. We are also best friends, lovers, and partners.

I get what I need from my Joe when I need it. This morning, I needed my Daddy to get me out of bed, hand me my tea, and send me off to school. This afternoon, I needed my lover and a bit of his sadistic side to satisfy that particular itch. Afterwards, we as partners discussed our future home buying project and went over the edits for his book. Right now, as my incredible sweetie, he is driving the kid back up to her school because she seems to have lost her phone. Again!

What I'm saying is that I love all the roles I have with this man and I wouldn't give a single one up for anything.

Well, I do have to really watch my "mothering" tendencies with him or my tushie sees lots of red.

 

[myinnerslut]

A and i dont really define ourselves. i am his submissive, his puppy, his girlfriend, his baby, his lover, his friend, etc etc and vice versa. he is many things to me. we never fit into a clear definition, especially since as time goes one our roles are changing and evolving. i usually say its D/s... but its our version of D/s which may not be the same as anyone else's

 

[ownedsubgal]

actually i think that most lifestyle dynamics are far less rigidly defined than many seem to think of them. so many think of M/s, and assume that there is a lack of love or affection, or think of BDSM and picture people walking around in leather all the time and a relationship full of scening. it just doesn't have to be that way.

i am a slave in a M/s relationship, but i am also my Master's daughter, his little girl, and he is Daddy, Dad, Father. we do not engage in ageplay or do any roleplay, he treats me like an adult, albeit an owned, dependent, powerless one. we don't shift roles, he will take care of me when i'm sick if that is what he feels i deserve, but i am always expected to take care of all my normal duties and responsibilities regardless of how i am feeling, unless he says otherwise. i've been pampered like a princess when i've been sick...meals in bed, no chores, books read to me...and i've also had to give hours-long blowjobs, lick piss from the floor and do heavy housecleaning when i've been sick...it's all his perogative, and i never forget that.

i don't think the Father/daughter aspect of our dynamic makes us any less M/s, as the fact that he is Owner and i am property is at the root of everything in the relationship, no matter how much love or tenderness may be present as well.

 

[EmpressFi]

A and i dont really define ourselves. i am his submissive, his puppy, his girlfriend, his baby, his lover, his friend, etc etc and vice versa. he is many things to me. we never fit into a clear definition, especially since as time goes one our roles are changing and evolving. i usually say its D/s... but its our version of D/s which may not be the same as anyone else's

I can relate to this .. I definitely dont think Master and I fit into any particular definition.. I'm his pet, his girlfriend, lover, frient, partner in crime.. sounding board, and it works both ways.. and I dont think it matters if our definition of what our D/s is matches anyone else.. it works for us and has for about a year

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[Exogenous]

This question comes up from time to time, and I always wonder where the idea that M/s D/s relationships are supposed to fit into a rigid definition came from, because the concern seems pretty prevalant (across multiple message boards).

Could it be a defense mechanism, in the need or desire to prove (to themselves or the world) that their style is right and “true”? Or a need to fit a standard which may allow them validation as to how they practice M/s D/s? So many people try to fit a specific mold, perhaps because that gives them a better sense of security. Although that train of thought does not lend itself well to so many on this forum who write in terms of celebrating their individuality and uniqueness.

In a traditional relationship, you can be a wife/mother/friend/confidant/lover/etc, and no one worries about the blurring of the lines between each "role", but once a power dynamic is established, it seems like people start worrying about a slave/submissive/girlfriend/littlegirl/partner/lover/friend/confidant blurryness...

Perhaps some people (in a power based dynamic) prefer the easier way of interacting with others by specifying and demanding certain parameters of behavior. “Here is the box in which you will fit, no, you may not color outside the lines”, kind of mentality. Because, otherwise, that would require being able to relate with and enjoy the different aspects of a Dom or sub on a human level…we all wear different hats, depending on any given situation.

If a Dom cannot appreciate the different characteristics of a sub (and vice versa), to me, that would be a rigid, boring, and unrealistic way of life.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[FurryFury]

This question comes up from time to time, and I always wonder where the idea that M/s D/s relationships are supposed to fit into a rigid definition came from, because the concern seems pretty prevalant (across multiple message boards).

In a traditional relationship, you can be a wife/mother/friend/confidant/lover/etc, and no one worries about the blurring of the lines between each "role", but once a power dynamic is established, it seems like people start worrying about a slave/submissive/girlfriend/littlegirl/partner/lover/friend/confidant blurryness...

I totally agree with your post.

*nods muchly*

 

[Exogenous]

Possibly... I just struggle to wrap my mind around the idea that being pampered when you have the flu means you aren't a "slave" anymore, or that it's so difficult (definitionally) to be both a "slave" and a "lil girl"... *For me* rigid definitions smack of fantasy role playing, rather than fluid humanity - and I have yet to meet a non-fluid human. LOL

Agreed.

To my way of thinking we are a combination of various traits, characteristics, needs, wants, etc., all wrapped up in each individual. We are not just a slave or just a Daddy’s girl, or just a mother, or just a son, or just a CEO, or just a musician, or just…whatever. We are a combination of various things, regardless of whether we are sick, sad, happy, angry, or whichever way we are feeling at any given moment.

If a Dom (or anyone, for that matter) expected me to be always joyful, always healthy, always “perfectly performing” within in his specified requirements, then I’d have to tell him to go find a robot. Although robots can malfunction, too, albeit less often than a mere human being. So I guess the Dom would be SOL if he could not be understanding of his sub’s (or robot’s) less than perfect moments.

Also, if a Dom was too prideful to allow me to comfort him in his illness or take care of things when he was incapcitated or recooperating or simply so busy in his profession and not have the time for day-to-day dealings then what good am I to the relationship in general? I would hope that my Dom was not too prideful to benefit from my skills and strengths.

 

[graceanne]

This question comes up from time to time, and I always wonder where the idea that M/s D/s relationships are supposed to fit into a rigid definition came from, because the concern seems pretty prevalant (across multiple message boards).

In a traditional relationship, you can be a wife/mother/friend/confidant/lover/etc, and no one worries about the blurring of the lines between each "role", but once a power dynamic is established, it seems like people start worrying about a slave/submissive/girlfriend/littlegirl/partner/lover/friend/confidant blurryness...

Some poeple prefer rules and clear definition. It makes them feel secure, and if it's not there, they'll spend lots of time and energy trying to find or make those rules.

 

[graceanne]

Possibly... I just struggle to wrap my mind around the idea that being pampered when you have the flu means you aren't a "slave" anymore, or that it's so difficult (definitionally) to be both a "slave" and a "lil girl"... *For me* rigid definitions smack of fantasy role playing, rather than fluid humanity - and I have yet to meet a non-fluid human. LOL

Actually this aggravates me. When I get sick K takes care of me - and does a good job at it. That doesn't make me any less of a submissive or him any less of a dominant. Frankly, their's still a dom/sub dynamic. Believe me, even when he's sick I don't tell him what to do. On the other hand he'll make me eat, make me drink water . . . make me take my meds (cause my inner two year old gets very stubborn about that), etc.

 

[Homburg]

I can't conceive of quantifying my relationship with "v". She is my wife, my lady, my submissive, my girl, my lover, my etc. In short, she's "mine", and that is what is on the plate that I had engraved for her collar. Anything beyond that clouds the issue for me. She's happy with that concept too, so it all works out.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Reading all this pish-posh, it seems to me most folks here are clueless about what & who they are. It reminds me of kiddies playing house and doctor and school and whatever. Does anyone here, besides me, know for sure who in hell they are?

 

[Homburg]

Very few people live squarely at the precise intersection of "ass" and "hole".

You are indeed fortunate.

 

[graceanne]

Reading all this pish-posh, it seems to me most folks here are clueless about what & who they are. It reminds me of kiddies playing house and doctor and school and whatever. Does anyone here, besides me, know for sure who in hell they are?

I was gonna make a comment about trolls visiting, but your comment isn't insulting.

I agree that most people, here and in the world, have NO idea who they are. I think it's one of the main root causes of the discontent you find in American's. Most people have no idea who they are, and are trying to fit into a mold of what they think they should be.

 

[LadyAria]

Very few people live squarely at the precise intersection of "ass" and "hole".

You are indeed fortunate.

LMAO.

I know who I am. I'm the woman who wants to have forehead sex with Homburg.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[Betticus]

So then, it's fair to say that d/s relationships are boundless and very deep and the people in them no matter what predominant personality trait rules them, they are free to feel and be without real fear of losing themselves.

Sweet.

 

[graceanne]

[Yay! Insomnia!]

But see that's where it breaks down for me... the compartmentalized argument... I am seeking out a relationship in which there are clearly defined "rules" for lack of a better term. I know my place, I am regularly reminded of my place, I know there are pros and cons of exsisting within my place, and consequences for stepping outside of my place. I understand that security. I need that security.

(speaking hypothetically as I'm not in a relationship)

As long as "serving at his pleasure" remains at the top of the list, I am honoring my position and fulfilling my place - regardless of wether or not others see my behaviour as fitting a "submissive/slave", or are of the opinion that I'm too spoiled to qualify as a "submissive/slave", or think the dynamic is more "girl" than "slave", or feel I'm being less than submissive/slave-like by taking charge of XYZ (probably at his request, or as intuitively meeting a need I recognise he has). As long as he and I understand and agree upon the blurry lines, as long as he and I define our "titles", who gives a rat's ass if I appear to be a "real" whatever?

I think that all relationships have rules and guidelines, but those rules and guidelines are specific to that relationship. You might share a rule with someone else, but not all your rules will be the same as someone elses. I need clearly defined rules, too, but my rules won't be the same as yours, or cats, or osg, or netzachs.

I think that people, as a rule, like to be told what to do and what to believe. They will look for pre-existing rules and guidelines, because that's easier than figuring out what works for them.

Or maybe I'm just bitchy cause my back hurts.

It goes back to my belief that labels are jumping off points, not landing pads. My actions define me; my purpose is [will be] to place his pleasure as my highest priority; therefore, regardless of what I am doing at any given time, as long as I keep that purpose in mind, I am continuing to exsist within the agreed upon boundaries of our rules and definitions. Any angst over fitting the cultural "true" definition of Susie Slave is thus eliminated.

[/Yay! Insomnia!]

Another great analogy. To tell the truth, while I label myself a sub, their are many who - if they knew our relationship works - would say I'm not. It's possibly why I don't worry too much about what other people lable themselves.

 

[graceanne]

So then, it's fair to say that d/s relationships are boundless and very deep and the people in them no matter what predominant personality trait rules them, they are free to feel and be without real fear of losing themselves.

Sweet.

I'd say it's fair to say that ANY relationships are boundless, and the people in them are free to feel and be without real fear of losing themselves.