The Ties That Bind... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

losttreasure -> The Ties That Bind... (2/12/2007 12:13:52 PM)

A train of thought began for me many, many months ago when I first began seeking a D/s relationship, and although it's now a somewhat moot question for me as I've found my partner, I do think it's a valid issue to explore in these fora. 

Yesterday I made a comment in another thread that touched upon this issue; in it, I talked about some of the dominants I've spoken to who have appeared to have a very hateful attitude toward women.  They are the extreme cases, but there have also been dominants who were very adamant that they were not interested in any type of emotional involvement with their submissive. 

These dominants were seeking only what they inferred was "pure" D/s... dominance and submission with no entanglements.  Of course, there were those who had no issues with, and some who even encouraged their submissive to be emotionally attached to them... but for themselves, they refused to become encumbered.

While I understand that there are countless preferences in this lifestyle, I knew for myself that I couldn't become involved in a one-sided relationship like that.  I suppose, for a while, I felt that I was somehow wrong for wanting more... that I was expecting more than what this lifestyle could offer me.  Perhaps I was a misfit... a submissive anomaly.  But eventually I came to realize that I would never have what I sought if I didn't at least try.

At any rate, I came upon another thread yesterday that sort of stopped me in my tracks and made me think that perhaps I wasn't quite so unusual.  In it, submissives were asked what it was that bound them most to their relationships to their dominants.  I was surprised to see the vast majority of responses were ones mentioning love or some other strong emotional tie.

But then I wondered... were these submissives loved in return?  Would they be as bound to their dominants if there was no reciprocal emotion?

So, I asked.  The responses have again surprised me.  As of the time I write this, while a few have admitted to having once been in an "emotionless" D/s relationship, they have stated that they are far happier in ones where there is mutual admiration and affectionate feelings.  Aside from that, nearly every other respondent has indicated the need to be deeply cared for in some capacity by their dominant, if not loved.

So my thoughts turn now to the dominant side of the equation.  I don't want to rehash the debate about whether dominance and submission is possible without emotions, but a more directed consideration of whether there is a disparity between the number of submissives and dominants seeking emotional ties.  Are there fewer dominants who are seeking an emotional bond with their submissive?

Oh... and if you thought this thread was simply a discussion about different types of bondage material... feel free to mention that, too.  [;)]



SusanofO -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/12/2007 12:19:09 PM)

Wow, that is a good topic, losttreasure. I personally equate the D/s world with the "vanilla" dating world, as fas as the variety of people who probably frequent it. So, for me, that means I think there are probably men who don't want any emotional involvement and also many who prefer it, and wouldn't consider living without it.

I know my Daddy seems like he prefers emotional attachment to his submissive. He is a real Teddy Bear (I think he seems that way anyway), although I haven't yet been exposed to his "stern" side (I am sure he probably has one, though - he's referred to it). Still, I just cannot picture him having a relationship and feeling that detached - I really cannot.

I suppose there are men for whom this works well - but I tend to think they'd have to be more the "Player" type. I could be wrong, but that's my impression.

I realize men and women may be "wired" a little bit differently in regard to "needing" emotional attachment for a sexual (or a "deeper") relationship - but hopefully, not all that differently. I mean, I suppose if it works for both people involved, it's fine - but yes, when I read about what you've described, I wonder how I'd feel if it was my Daddy saying how detached he felt, etc.

As a submissive - I guess I am a "typical" submissive- I cannot picture having a relationship without emotional involvement - it just wouldn't work at all for me. 

- Susan



lateralist1 -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/12/2007 12:49:04 PM)

Great post. Yes it does seem that women want the emotional attatchement more than men. It is difficult I think for some Dommes to bring out their 'evil' side with a sub/slave that they love. I have never had that problem in the past but I am wondering whether I might in the future. I mentioned this on the post I think you are referring to. If I am too afraid to be my dominant self because I am afraid of losing him because I love him. Obviously that would then be a real problem.  However as I have also said before it's not a complete satisfying D/s BDSM partnership if I don't love him. If our hearts, minds and souls are not linked then the intensity isn't anywhere near as great. D/s and BDSM is my sexuality and if my whole being isn't involved then it's just like vanilla sex where there is no emotion. It can be physically satisfying but that's all. And how can someone actually be a slave/sub if all they are doing is giving the physical side of themselves? I want it to be emotional slavery for my pets. If it's merely physical then any good top will do for them. I'm a pretty poor top at the moment but I'm a good Domme I hope.



MasterFireMaam -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/12/2007 1:11:17 PM)

Every Master and Dominant I know decently requires some sort of emotional bond with thier slave in order both enjoy and fulfill their duties in the relationship. I know I do.

Master Fire



taintedgypsy -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/12/2007 1:52:19 PM)

I have thought about this alot. In vanilla I tended towards one sided relationships where my "emotional attachment" was always greater than my partners. Yet I do not think I have ever truely loved someone or been loved. I actually think I have a problem with the whole concept but will not go there here.

The relationship of the last 12mths has challenged this, and I have experienced feelings and depths of emotion I did not even know existed, (probably adding to the stress of the whole period lol) and now wonder if there was not some sort of underlying protection against emotions I was simply unable to deal with.

There are people for reasons of childhood damage, adult harm or simply mental health isssues that just can not deal with the stress, complexity or intensity of these deeper bonds. Yet still need the comfort and security of a relationship.

This does not mean that the relationship is not fulfilling or important to those involved but from the outside would appear to lack emotional bonds, or to be onesided.

Just annother perspective to consider

warm smiles




Celeste43 -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/12/2007 2:44:42 PM)

He needs the bond even more than I do if that's possible. He has zero interest in casual sex either. I doubt he's the only one.



losttreasure -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/12/2007 6:28:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Wow, that is a good topic, losttreasure. I personally equate the D/s world with the "vanilla" dating world, as fas as the variety of people who probably frequent it. So, for me, that means I think there are probably men who don't want any emotional involvement and also many who prefer it, and wouldn't consider living without it.


Thank you, Susan... though I get the distinct impression we won't be seeing many male doms comment.  This topic might be just a tad too volatile. [:D]

As the comments I've seen have been in initial contacts or general introductions, I wonder if some of the reluctance stems from a desire to avoid obligation?  Not necessarily commitment, for even considering taking responsibility for control of another person is far from non-committal... but the liability that might arise from even alluding to the possibility of love.

What if a dominant failed to develop an emotional attachment to the submissive he's been involved with?  What if the feelings he develops are only mild attraction but he's otherwise happy with the relationship?  What if in getting to know the submissive he understands her need for love, but he's not really sure what love really is himself? Would he be letting the submissive down by admitting that although he might care for her, he doesn't know that he can love her?  Would he be obligated to end the relationship?

If everything else within the relationship appeared to be great, I can see where pinning success or failure on an intangible and often undefinable emotion might seem absurd.

I can really almost see where it would be easier to start things off with "no promises", or even avoid the issue altogether by not making it a part of the relationship to begin with.

*sighs*  Where are the eloquent and insightful males when you need them.  [;)]



Driver1961 -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/13/2007 4:53:43 PM)

He enters, dips His lid.

Woo hoo, is that a challenge Lost?   Fair comments though, I grant you that.

I doubt that this lack of emotional attachment you describe is only for the males- let alone the Doms, but I do sway towards observing real-life and online that many male Doms do exhibit this lack of emotional attachment to their sub/slave.

Firstly I believed that it was 'role playing' on their behalf ( but I personally quizzed some 20 Doms)  It became apparent that it wasn't just role playing,  these men were bound emotionally themselves- finding it extremely difficult or simply unable to answer my questions emotionally.   Now I know men like this in Nilla too, but I found it in the BDSM world as paradoxical; I always assumed the 'Dynamic Connection' was equality of respect which equates to my understanding as equality of participants in value.  

But I now understand (some 3 yrs later) that  I did not open my thinking enough.  There is little doubt that the 'Dynamic Connection' whether- Master/s  Dom/s Top/bot, Sadist/Maso  is present for those participants.   I may find the Sadist/Masochist dynamic repugnant but I now realise they have the same Ying/Yang that I may have in my D/s connection with  Precious.  One person 'balances' the 'other' to make an equality in their union.

My beliefs mean that I can  write that; I know D/s pple that I would refer more so as Master/slave where the Master is very emotionally distant  but conversly I know Sir/subs that are similarly emotionally distant.   These 'category labels' although necessary to understanding of one's orientation can be very misleading when we look at individual wants and expectations in their BDSM relationships or encounters.

I think the 'legal' avenue of people exploring their 'base' wants n needs like sadism, masochism, slavery, servitude etc is healthy n fulfilling for themselves rather than their ignorance of this- which could  result in their harming themselves (sub types) or VERY  non-consenting illegal acts (Dom types)

It probably comes down to the basics like others have already said,  BDSM relationships are little different to nilla- If you make a committment to someone (a basic sexual or not relationship) then it pays to be reasonably certain that you will be respected and treated in the manner befitting personal health and when you are not- You are responsible for seeking clarification of the boundaries of the relationship.  But Damm, regardless it's all a minefield!!!! 

I trust this gives a Dom perspective and hopefully your cudgel may be met by other Doms.  

Warm regards to all, Driver1961




LuckyAlbatross -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/13/2007 5:22:50 PM)

I think the disparity is more often imagined and a perception that is encouraged rather than the reality.

A LOT of doms are insecure, heck they all are at something, and since most subs flee from anything they smell as "weak" those doms will simply shut the issue out and away rather than deal with it openly and honestly.



Lucius -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/13/2007 5:42:31 PM)

"Love" is a very problematic word because it means different things to different people. That's why I sometimes say "I don't know what love is." I genuinely DON'T know what loves is to YOU.

But I know that for women, in particular, it often seems to be a word with bizarre implications. Even from a submissive to a Dominant, "i love You" can seem to mean "i own You" or "i have a right to control You" or at the least, "You no longer have all the rights and privileges You had before." Instead of a giving emotion, it often seems a very demanding one.

Lucius Alexander

House of the Palindromedary



Driver1961 -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/13/2007 6:03:47 PM)

He dips His lid to L/a

My thoughts exactly!



losttreasure -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/14/2007 5:59:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Driver1961

Woo hoo, is that a challenge Lost?   Fair comments though, I grant you that.


Perhaps a bit of one, but more a call for open communication.  [;)]  After all, without an understanding of others' perceptions, how can I challenge and come to understand my own?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucius

"Love" is a very problematic word because it means different things to different people. That's why I sometimes say "I don't know what love is." I genuinely DON'T know what loves is to YOU.

But I know that for women, in particular, it often seems to be a word with bizarre implications. Even from a submissive to a Dominant, "i love You" can seem to mean "i own You" or "i have a right to control You" or at the least, "You no longer have all the rights and privileges You had before." Instead of a giving emotion, it often seems a very demanding one.


I think you've touched here on the very core of this issue... there is a very real difference in how men and women think.

I think that women see emotions as a sort of gauge of commitment to a relationship.  If a man says to a woman, "I don't know what love is", her instinct is to hear that as something along the lines of, "I'm not sure I can feel strongly enough to stick around".

Basically, if a dominant tells me, "I will not develop emotions for you", on a gut level I take that to mean that he has no real interest in making a commitment to a lasting relationship with me.  There may be surface intent, but I don't perceive any willingness to vest of himself.

That may not make sense to men, and I'm interested in hearing their perceptions.



amayos -> RE: The Ties That Bind (2/14/2007 9:02:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure
So my thoughts turn now to the dominant side of the equation. I don't want to rehash the debate about whether dominance and submission is possible without emotions, but a more directed consideration of whether there is a disparity between the number of submissives and dominants seeking emotional ties. Are there fewer dominants who are seeking an emotional bond with their submissive?


From my point of view, the aforementioned "debate" about emotion not being needed isn't a debate at all as much as it is a recurring loop where the opening poster refuses to acknowledge some pretty obvious points, ad infinitum. Emotion is present in everything we do and plan to do; it's in the very least a tool of perception we cannot escape. With that said, I feel it's correct to suggest the idea that emotional connection, though subtle or not necessarily the type of connection romantically idealized, exists nonetheless—even if it is a thread born of profound cruelty, fear and masochism, where no Valentines Day cherubs will be found fluttering about.

Regarding the perceived disparity between the number of dominants and submissives seeking emotional ties, often when someone speaks of such ties they are referring to one of the titan emotions we call "Love" or an intense feeling of deep affection. Under that premise, I would say there is a natural order to how love is offered in such relationships. While it is true many good servants do love and should love deeply, it is a mistake to believe most dominant parties cannot display affection or love; they certainly can and do, but it's often given differently and on their time frames. Many dominant individuals are well versed in the arts of persuasion and emotional trapping; it is a web they weave and ply with understanding. Considering that, it makes sense to suggest they know the many forms of emotional manipulation others may attempt using against them. They are often deigned loveless predators or something far less opulent when they don't want to play that game.

I know I find it a perpetual source of irony that the ones who complain about the lack of love in others the most usually understand the true nature of love the least.




OedipusRexIt -> RE: The Ties That Bind (2/14/2007 9:27:58 AM)

I require an emotional connection.  Being a Dom can be a lot of work, and I'm simply not going to go to that kind of trouble for a quickie, fling, etc.  If I'm going to work up flog-sweat, it better be for someone special.

I know that many Doms conceive of their submissive partners as objects, in order to divorce emotion from the relationship (and perhaps absolve them of any guilt/awkward feelings of "love").  Whatever works between consenting adults, I suppose...

For me, no emotional attachment means no particular desire... beyond the occasional need to let off steam.  For that, anyone will do, but for a real D/S connection - not there without emotional attachment.

Q.E.D.



Wildfleurs -> RE: The Ties That Bind (2/14/2007 9:57:57 AM)

This is off topic but I have to say Amayos, I absolutely love your new user pic!

C~



SirDominic -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/14/2007 10:02:58 AM)

losttreasure, you are having waaaay too much fun challenging us Dominants!

I think there is actually a very simple answer to your question, and it has nothing to do with BDSM at all. On the whole, men are taught to be less emotional than women. So even when they do love, its expression is usually limited and downplayed. To women this comes across as the man isn't as emotionally involved in the relationship, when in reality he is simply expressing it in the way he knows how.

This carries over into the fetish world as often as not.

Namaste, Sir Dominic



puella -> RE: The Ties That Bind (2/14/2007 10:24:44 AM)

Hrmm..  you always add an intelligent point of view to the topics you speak to, and yet somehow make me a bit unnerved as well (don't take that the wrong way)... I will think about what you said for a while.  Thank you, amayos.



slavemaia -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/14/2007 11:13:39 AM)

What i've experienced is, without a deep connection, which i call love, my submission at best is playing a role. i think some people prefer to keep their BDSM separate from what they identify as actually them. For example, a high powered executive who handles immense responsibility all week and just wants to let go for a period of time but then return to that position of power and authority. In that case it may be more convenient to just have a play partner and keep the emotions at a minimum. That's never floated my boat.
 
In terms of those who consider no emotional involvement "pure D/s" i beg to differ. For me the only way i can experience pure D/s is through intense emotional involvement. Only through this emotion am i compelled to surrender all i am to my Master. Otherwise i feel like i'm just putting on the submissive hat, so-to-speak and will return to who i really am afterward. For me, who i really am is a slave - there is nothing else i wish to return to later.



Lucius -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/14/2007 11:59:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

I think you've touched here on the very core of this issue... there is a very real difference in how men and women think.

I think that women see emotions as a sort of gauge of commitment to a relationship. 


And you and I are demonstrating that difference here.

(Note - please undrstand that all generalizations I make are made for the sake of convenience of expression, and that I recognize that things I speak of as absolute or universal may be merely almost but not quite universal. End Disclaimer.)

For example. Men DON'T commit to relationships. Don't expect us to. I realize they are very real to you, but to us, relationships are invisible and intangible abstractions. WOMEN are real to us. We are real to ourselves, obviously. A relationship is something with no reality of its own. I mean, if the people are gone, where is the relationship?

That doesn't mean a man can't commit to YOU. Or love you. But understand that whatever a man means when he says "I love you" he is probably talking about HIS feelings about YOU - not about a "relationship."

To a woman, relationships matter. To a man, people matter.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary adds another disclaimer: Lucius Alexander is still figuring it all out at the age of 43 and very possibly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. All opinions should be taken with a little salt, including this one.



agirl -> RE: The Ties That Bind... (2/14/2007 12:56:02 PM)


It would seem a little daft to begin a relationship WITH promises, to me. Until you've spent time really getting to know someone, over time, it's almost impossible to predict how you're going to feel.

Love isn't mirrored in any case, and one person's fondness and affection is another person's *true love*.

I'm not a chap, but I wouldn't mention the *love* word either..... One chap told me that the fact that I held his hand and was affectionate, meant that I'd *led him to believe* that I loved him. That, to him, was HIS *rule of thumb*, it wasn't mine, though.

If you don't mirror someone's feelings, it doesn't mean everything has to be *over*. It can really muddy the waters though.

agirl








Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875