|
losttreasure -> RE: The Ties That Bind (2/14/2007 5:15:02 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: amayos
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.
Are you suggesting that possibly those dominants who opt to remain emotionally unattached in a relationship, believe that by allowing feelings for their submissive they would be opening themselves to emotional manipulation?
quote:
ORIGINAL: amayos
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.
I've not often heard someone complain about the lack of love in others, but I would think it's more a lack of the manifestations they feel love would bring rather than the actual emotion. After all, we can't feel what others feel and as far as I know, we've no way to measure emotions... how would they know that there is any emotional deficit?
quote:
ORIGINAL: OedipusRexIt
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.
It's that desire to divorce emotion from the relationship that I'm struggling to understand. I understand that women (not all, of course) have a tendency to be more emotionally driven than men, but I can't imagine choosing to have such an intimate type of relationship with someone you had no intimate emotions for. And I don't see a D/s relationship as a casual type of arrangment. (Of course, I'm not speaking of an occasional play situation.) But for me as well, no emotional attachment appears to mean no particular desire. If there's no desire, why bother?
quote:
ORIGINAL: SirDominic
losttreasure, you are having waaaay too much fun challenging us Dominants!
I like stimulation of all types. [;)]
quote:
ORIGINAL: SirDominic
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.
I can understand a man displaying his emotions differently, and I can understand where a woman who is a very emotionally centered creature might find his reserved expression to be less than she might want. But it's the dominants who proclaim that they desire a woman to be their possession... to control and manipulate for their own needs... to be in a fairly intimate situation with (24/7 live-in is pretty intimate) on a long-term basis, but they have no intention or desire to develop any affectionate or amorous feelings for her. Those, I don't understand... and seeing that so many submissives say that they need the affection and appreciation from their dominants in order to submit, I'm wondering if there isn't a huge disconnect in the world of BDSM.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucius
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...
I can understand what you are saying, but I do agree there is a basic language barrier here as well as my not conveying my thoughts very well. When I say "commit to a relationship", it's an even broader concept that just being committed to a person. Yes, he can commit to me, but he can also commit to being with me.
Haven't you ever loved someone but it just wouldn't work being with them? Do you know anyone who's ever heard the break-up line, "I do care about you and still want to be your friend"?
Caring about or even loving someone doesn't mean that you are willing to do what is necessary to be together and stay together.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucius
...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.
I would hope he's talking about his feelings for me and not the relationship... for I'm certainly saying I love him and not the relationship.
While relationships do matter to women, people usually take priority. [;)]
quote:
ORIGINAL: agirl
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
I agree that we all have our own definitions of love... and I'm certainly in agreement that I wouldn't agree to committing to a long-term relationship until I know what kind of emotional ties will develop.
But it's these cases that seem to be unique in WIIWD, where a dominant approaches a submissive and D/s relationship as if he were shopping for a new dentist...
|
|
|
|
