As if I haven't stirred up enough thought lately (<weg>), here's one to bat around:

At a roundtable this past weekend, someone (a person who identifies as not enjoying BDSM as a lifestyle, but as a play activity) made a statement that I could easily see rubbed quite a few people the wrong way. The reason I point out the person's 'self-label' is because I observed that the differing opinions seemed to come from the side who generally identify as "D-S relationship based/lifestyle oriented." Those who were more into the S-M aspects and/or in the camp of "I'm not in a relationship where I live this with someone all the time" were pretty solidly grouped in agreement with the original statement -- which was (paraphrased):

Romance is a vanilla concept to help generally inhibited people to get comfortable with each other and open the door for them to be sexually expressive. In BDSM, we don't need the pretense or sham of it because we are already well beyond that door.

So, what do you think?

Be safe,
Thorn

That attitude also pervades 'vanilla' swingers and other multiple sex kinks, or those who enjoy 'sport' or.
'recreational' sex.

So, I dunno. I tried it for over a year, to make someone else happy, because he likes it so much himself -- and to find out, indeed, if yes, as they say, you try it, you love it!

But I didn't love it. I found myself more and more and more reluctant to give myself up to strangers, and that it was impossible to 'give it up' so to speak at all -- no pleasure, nor orgasm, only intensifying anxiety -- and resentment of my dom. While being surrounded by people begging me to come. I just wanted to throw up.

I'm not against 'playing' but I want to play with people I know and like -- and most of all, with and in the presence of my dom. What I have enjoyed the very most in a play situation was the initial dance, flirtation, getting to know someone, knowing exactly where this can likely lead.

Playing with people you do know and like through shared interest, professions, etc., IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Which then makes it very difficult. Especially as I usually like the woman and almost always do not like the guy in a couple.

Is this what you're looking for?

i don't condemn or berate anyone for having a romantic frame of mind. But i don't think that one has to have a romantic outlook to have a successful 24/7 primarily D/s relationship, either. Of course, i guess that depends on how you define "romantic." Personally, i don't have a romantic bone in my body; that doesn't mean i think it's wrong, it's just not me.

Peace
firebaby

Gotta jump in on this one!

Those of you who are regulars know that I am in a 24/7 committed M/s relationship, a relationship which has taken a slight change with the impending marriage of myself and my slave. There is no "real" change in our relationship, married or unmarried, because the M/s will continue and my commitment to her will be unchanged. We will just have a piece of paper that makes us a "legal" couple...as adverse to an "illegal" couple...lol.

There is romance in this relationship. There is great love in this relationship...and I would have it no other way. I have been, in the past, an uncommitted "top" or "Dom" and, I must admit, there was not a great deal of "romance" between myself and the various bottoms/subs with whom I played.

Perhaps the key to this whole thing is the relationship...and the perception of the relationship by both sides. It is, IMNSHO, pretty hard to be "really" romantic with a bottom that you have barely met and, after a play session, probably do not intend to form more than a "play" partnership. The "trust" that was shown was more a reflection of my reputation as a safe and careful "player", and not from any "romantic" foreplay...lol. I was honest with those with whom I played, letting them know from the get go that I had no intentions toward them other than as a "play" partner. I was attentive, gave very good aftercare, but that was the extent of the "romance".

In my current relationship, and I fervently hope it lasts for the balance of my life, there is great romance...cards, gifts, quiet meals in our favorite restaurants, snuggling, constant touching...all those things that "most" describe as "romantic". It is, I feel, a symptom of the "relationship" and the "commitment" we have for each other. It is, to me, an inseparable part of the relationship I share with janiece...a most vital and vibrant part.

So...I vote Yes! BDSM and romance can and do exist...they are healthy and well, at least in my life.

Knyghtflyher

Ok I'm a line blurrer I guess. I am very much into SM. I like to watch some of partners cry in agony, actual tears, I like the scream and shrieks. I am also very much into D/s relationships and consider myself to be "lifestyle" Is love needed for there to be a successful D/s relationship? No. What is required is that the submissive (not a bottom nor even a masochist) be driven to serve, to find their joy in serving their dominant (not a top nor even a sadist). The dominant neess to be able to appreciate the service being rendered and be comfortable with it. Love in a successful D/s relationship can and does happen, but its not needed for it to be successful. Would i prefer to be in love? Sure. I can hurt someone I love just as much if not more so than someone I am only "playing" with. The girl that I am seeing now is 23, looks to be about 18, has the biggest most expressive doe eyes, has a huge little girl energy and I care greatly for her. I will also beat her to the point of tears and beyond, marks, welts and *happy sigh* blood* And it makes me smile to see her cry during play. To see her cry otherwise will rip my heart out, but it would with any of my friends irregardless of "love". D/s, the last I checked still stood for Dominance and Submission, not Dances/Slowly Can and does love exist in D/s relationships? Certainly. Does it have to? Nope, nada.

Justin Medlin

hmmmm good question that I've even asked myself.

For me, if there is to ever be play in my life again, there can't and won't be any romance.

I've gone the romance route with D/s and I have to say, while wonderful, I can't go back that route again. However, I do wonder what it will be like without the romance and if I can even do that at all. It "seems" as if it would be completely 100% different.

I ask myself how can I get to places in my submission without doing the romantic (mainly emotional) things I feel get me there. But that opens up another question. Did the emotional things (trust, openness, honesty) have anything to do with romance? Now that I think about it... I hope not, that means there's hope yet. <eg>

Can I get by on a beating here and there without the romance? I can't wait to try. LOL The reason I say that is that I've seen Gloria talk about how repressing feelings can explode. Well the pot is boiling. :)
I feel, which I have to say I'm scared, that at this point I'm willing to take that chance on no romance and see what happens. You can only run so far from yourself.

Make sense to anyone but me? Sounds as if I'm going in circles after rereading.

From the vanilla side of it, I have to respectfully disagree with the comment. I don't think the romance has anything to do with being sexually expressive in my marriage. Romance to me shows love at different levels. From a strong like and trying to build on a relationship to head over heels crazy about someone. There's no more romance when we make love then if we slam fuc.. well, "do it wildly". <eg> It's just different.

~Chris

I started to jump on this until I scrolled down and read Knyghtflyher comments. Crap, I can't add anything to it. I have a wonderful marriage. And the romance is as alive and well and it is as exciting as it was the day we met. So cast my proven vote for Yes! BDSM and romance is alive and well.

This is what i meant by "it depends on how you define 'romance'." We each seem to have a different idea about what is meant by the word. Personally, i do not think "romance" is just a nice way of saying "sex" (as has been used ad nauseum in the popular media). i do not think "romance" is the same as love. As i interpret "romance," it's a way of looking at the world, and a particular way of approaching a loved one (or coveted one). So perhaps we should have a clearer understanding of what is meant by "romance," eh?

Peace
firebaby

P.S. i have belonged to Master for nearly 4 years now, and there is great love and *definitely* a serious commitment between us. Those are two other things that i don't think are synonymous with my idea of "romance."

Consulting Webster's dictionary:

ROMANCE
1 a (1) : a medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural (2) : a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious (3) : a love story b : a class of such literature
2 : something (as an extravagant story or account) that lacks basis in fact
3 : an emotional attraction or aura belonging to an especially heroic era, adventure, or activity

=======================================================

i will definitely concur with the adventure definition!!! i wish to remain with Master in this "adventure" forever @>~~>~~

knyghtsdragon

Me too, I think. "Romance" for me has always seemed like it referred to certain gestures and outlooks... "candlelight dinners", "roses", etc. Sweetness-and-light, cosset-the-girl kinda stuff. Which I never liked, and never found particularly useful. Yeah, I like roses and chocolates. But that's less because roses and chocolates make me bat my eyes and go "you're soooo romaaaaAAntic!" (yes, I know this is an exaggeration) than it is because, well, roses to me symbolize SM and make me think evil thoughts :) and chocolate is chocolate. ;) You want to know what I'd like sexually, want me to open up about my sexual needs and desires... well, then ask and be honest and open and caring, and hey, you might find out. No roses necessary.

But if we are meaning by "romance" the idea that partners in a scene or a relationship ought to concentrate on a sensual awareness of one another, then I'm all for it -- even in casual play, that seems to be part of what would separate the truly connective, I'll-remember-that-one-for-all-my-life scenes from the less meaningful ones. Still more so in terms of relationships.

And if romance = love or = connective feelings, in this discussion... it's even more necessary for successful *relationships*, and I'd argue also for the kind of friendship that makes someone a great play partner (in my opinion of play, which basically says even if you're doing the "let's have fun tonight" bit... be friends first.)

You want to know what I'm like if I'm in a romantic mood?

Give me a luscious flogger, strip, and stand against that tree - such a pretty girl! This'll only take a couple hours; but afterwards - well, you'll know my definition! Scream all you want - it'll add nicely to the soundtrack, don't you think?

OK - so that wasn't exactly an answer to the thread - but it just popped into my head...

(mischievous smile)

I'm 'very' romantic - just NOT vanilla-wise!

Back to the thread - the opening statement sounds way too much like one of those completely unnecessary declamations 'players' (vs the lifestyle/compulsion mindset) would make (gag me with a fork):

'Cause there's romance; and then there's ROMANCE!

I'm with Fire, the definitions are all different from person to person. For me it was more of a swooning type thing.

I mean sure, give me a candle lit dinner, but romance me with the hot wax dripping on my body afterwards. Give me chocolates, but melt them and let it run all over us. Give me roses, but please use the thorns at your will. Take me to the movies or out to eat, but allow me to please you by having me wear your favorite plug you love to see me squirm in.....

Now THAT kinda romance I can live with! :)

But I can still see where some would want to skip the swooning vanilla type romance... Then again, swooning by definition could be the same argument as romance. lol

~Chris
who is somewhat disappointed by the websters definition of the word Romance.

Chris

True the Webster's definitions are somewhat lacking in detail... But i guess till there's a BDSM version published... It is what's available LOL

knyghtsdragon

chris,

I've been told I'm a romantic, and since the idea of 'wooing' someone with the perfect evening appeals to me, I guess I have to cop to that.

I'd like to think that the main underlying difference between 'the lfestyle' and 'not in the lifestyle' is that those who are give themselves and their SOs the right and freedom to make up their own definitions.

In other words, vanilla (in the pejorative sense) means romance, relationship and sex "the way its always been and the way its supposed to be", while the lifestyle approach is 'damn the torpedos - unless you can figure out something else to do with them, dear...'

Most regular folk I know would consider having melted chocolate rubbed all ove them to be 'gross' (don't play with your food) and totally unromantic. If you find it so - that's all that really matters, isn't it? Except finding someone to do the rubbing, of course.

I think uncnventional romance goes hand in hand with unconventional sex and unconventional lifetyles. But then, I NEVER stayed inside the lines of my coloring books.

(General posting)

I think it's safe to say that the label of 'romance' is going to be uniquely defined by each individual. I can whip someone by candlelight and make sincere comments about how beautiful their body is as it squirms and reddens -- how they moan and purr at the touch of my caress (etc. etc.) -- and not think anything romantic about it. Someone else might easily sigh and say, "How romantic." But, the definition itself really isn't the topical point.

Perhaps 'Rabid' made the key distinction in pointing out the dichotomy between 'conventional' (vanilla, as it pertains to the comment in the original posting) and 'unconventional' (as it pertains to any version of BDSM lifestyles). Ok...let's say (just for discussion's sake) that this distinction IS the key point. Would THAT change anyone's mind about agreeing/disagreeing with the original comment? If so, how does that distinction influence your position? If not, then how does that distinction solidify your position (presuming it does)?

By the way, if there's anyone out there who has NEVER been involved in a BDSM relationship (romantic or otherwise), I hope you'll seriously consider sounding off on this one. No one's looking for a universal solution or agreement -- it's just a discussion topic -- but I think that perspective would benefit many who read these boards in the hope of forming a solid foundation to find their own answers. So, take a leap and join in. ;-)

Be safe,
Thorn

For my partners last birthday I decided to make him the cake.
I lay him on the bed tied him to the post and them made a birthday cake on his stomach.

This took a while as he needed to be well decorated. Choclate, cream, icing, candles all were placed on him and for trimming his penis became a candle holder.
I this lit up the cake and waited for the canle wax to slowly drip on to his abdomen...slowly it driped from those candles and the one on his penis dripped as well.
I took a video of the night so he could remember it all.
So I think I must agree with you about choclate being rubbed all over.
the cake was spread all over both of us before the night was over. We had a lot of fun and it was very romantic.

' "Romance is a vanilla concept to help generally inhibited people to get comfortable with each other and open the door for them to be sexually expressive. In BDSM, we don't need the pretense or sham of it because we are already well beyond that door."
So, what do you think? '

In bdsm, we may be sexually expressive already, but we are *not* already comfortable with each other. Getting to know somebody is important. It sounds like the person who make that comment was not talking about romance, but about how well you need to know somebody before having sex or bdsm play, but I'll continue with the romance topic.

If we're talking about romantic love, then I disagree. Some people may not need it, but it definitely exists and is different from (but not necessarily more important than) friendship love or familial love.

If we're talking about romance in the sense of candlelight dinners, chocolates et all, then I think a lot of people these days do without. But remember that that the original purpose of these activities was courtship - a period of time where both parties can get to know each other and/or try to win the other's affection. Traditional romance is not important to me, but I would not have sex with someone whith whom I have not gone through the courtship phase (which for me does include candle wax more than candle light ;).

Thank you Thorn for bringing up such an interesting topic.

To: ultraviolet

You're quite welcome. It does have a lot of dimension to it, doesn't it?

Let me ask something (this is in general to anyone who'd like to comment) which questions your statements <<In bdsm, we may be sexually expressive already, but we are *not* already comfortable with each other. Getting to know somebody is important.>>

Have you ever been to a BDSM club or 'play party' and seen people scening who barely knew each other (if at all)? While I won't say definitively that it's pretty common (tends to be more a result of venue and/or reputation of the group), my experience is that it does happen a lot -- and particularly among people who enjoy kink on a 'play' basis (i.e., to relax and de-stress) but not necessarily as a daily part of their lives. In that regard, I can see exactly where the person who made the original comment is coming from. Does that mean that 'romance' as a relationship dynamic is therefore 'vanilla' though? Nah...can't quite go there.

Have a great weekend, folks. Be safe,
Thorn

ultra said "If we're talking about romance in the sense of candlelight dinners, chocolates et all, then I think a lot of people these days do without. But remember that that the original purpose of these activities was courtship - a period of time where both parties can get to know each other and/or try to win the other's affection. Traditional romance is not important to me, but I would not have sex with someone whith whom I have not gone through the courtship phase (which for me does include candle wax more than candle light ;)."

Which leads me to the question: what's the difference between romance/courtship and seduction? Is it only the fact that the seducer is looking for a short term relationship?

If that's so, then are those who get together just to play seducing each other and engaging in a form of short-term 'romance'?

Thorn: I don't frequent play parties since we don't practice the physical aspect of bdsm much. But I can see why some would scene with somebody they don't know well. For some people it is impossible to engage in bdsm anywhere else but a play party. I wouldn't doubt though, that even people who so scene with relative strangers like to have romance in other aspects of their lives.

rabidchihauhau: I guess one could make the comparison between seduction and courtship. It is an attempt at winning the other person's favor, even if just for a brief encounter. More preferable by most, I think, than "hello, let's f***".

When I was a child I spent an awful lot of time lost in romantic daydreams/fantasy. They often revolved around rescuing or being rescued, someone enduring beatings and humiliations, feats of endurance, etc. - all things which fit very well with my current BDSM practices :). BDSM does seem to trigger romantic feelings in me. I can get ridiculously soppy after a scene.

To: ultraviolet

So, in your specific situation of not practicing the 'physical aspect of BDSM much', are you saying that you view any romantic aspects of your relationship (which might occasionally occur) as purely vanilla? :-)

Be safe,
T.

Thorn I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to answer it. In our relationship, there is love and romance. That is the solid foundation of the relationship. The way we express that love is dominance and submission. So I would say that romance is an important part of D/s for us. We don't practice heavy b&d or s&m, because that just does not turn either of us on. I hope that clears things up.

To: ultraviolet

Perfectly. :-) Thank you for taking the time to share your personal views and experiences on this subject.

Be safe,
Thorn.

Thorn,

I've held off replying but now that a lot of others have weighed in, thought it was time to add my own opinions.

I don't know what the person-in-question thinks romance is--perhaps he or she is a callow lout who also thinks Valentine's Day should be called off and wants images of Santa and Easter Bunny outlawed as well :-) I hate phony, generic expressions of romance--saying words that don't carry real emotions, sending sentimental cards when you are incapable of actually *doing* something that proves you genuinely care. If p-i-q thinks romance is all about a fake show, perhaps p-i-q needs to live a little longer or love a little deeper.

IMO romance is an ideal in all love relationships. Not fake Hallmark romance, or the loud flowery nothings people paper all over the Internet, but genuine, heart-felt romance, where you make an effort to please and woo your partner by trying to anticipate what would really make them happy in love. For some, it could be flowers (I just *love* when a submissive brings me flowers), but SM romance (at least for me) goes much deeper. For example, my ex-slave and I always felt it was incredibly romantic when I beat him or did other cruel things. It was incredibly romantic that he--who had those profound needs he couldn't confess to anyone else--could confess those needs to me; and it was romantic that I not only understood those needs, but loved him for having them. For us, an afternoon of intense bondage was as romantic as love-making is to honeymooners.

This reminds me a little of the debates some people have about whether a Master/Mistress can/should fall in love with a sub and whether or not love "ruins" an SM relationship. I've heard plenty of people claim that it does, allegedly because doms who fall in love with their subs can't be cruel or controlling enough. I think this position is a pile of horse-poopie too: IMX, you're either who you are or you aren't. If you're a sadist who falls in love you don't stop being a sadist; I don't believe there *is* such a thing as being "too much in love" (just like I don't think a person can ever have "too much fun"). If anything, as I see it, being in love with your sub means you also love their masochism and (in my case, anyway) want to push them harder. After all, they love your sadism, right? So being less controlling or cruel is, actually, the equivalent of withholding love from them. What do you think?

Meanwhile, I confess a certain suspicion that people who dismiss romance and love in SM are using SM as a cover for their own romantic dysfunction and complex, perhaps uneasy, attitudes about love and intimacy. To me, Masters and Mistresses who declare they never fall in love with subs are basically declaring themselves incapable of strong emotion. And from my POV, those who claim that once they do fall in love they can no longer treat a slave as a slave would appear to have some fucked-up notions about submissives as being less-than-complete human beings. Put another way: if love and romance cripples your relationship, maybe the problem is within you (the dom) and your own ability to express emotions and form intimate bonds with lovers.

Glory

<< If you're a sadist who falls in love you don't stop being a sadist; >>

Not only have you given the nail a solid whack on the head, you've driven it so far through the wood it's fallen out the other side.

<< if love and romance cripples your relationship, maybe the problem is within you (the dom) and your own ability to express emotions and form intimate bonds with lovers. >>
   
Yeah. I remember meeting one guy who described how much he loved dominating women, and then spoke of how wonderful a submissive his wife was, only to lament "I wish *I* could dom her. She's the best submissive I've ever seen. But I can't. I love her too much."
   
I immediately found myself disliking this person. To me, that simply doesn't compute -- period. For me, the more I love someone, the more I desire his submission, and the freer I feel to explore the parts of me that aren't Ms. Friendly Sunshine Are You Flying Sweetie. (As well as the parts of me that are, of course. ;)

<<She's the best submissive I've ever seen. But I can't. I love her too much." >>

EEEEEEEEEP! *tearing hair*

That attitude is really offensive to me. So would the reverse be true? That the people he dominates most sincerely are the ones he hates?

ARGH.

Glory said: "To me, Masters and Mistresses who declare they never fall in love with subs are basically declaring themselves incapable of strong emotion"

Do you feel this way about all people who choose not to let romantic love enter a D/s relationship? I've seen some people whose bdsm needs and romance needs are quite independant of each other.

I would have to agree with Gloria. While romance has never been the basis of any relationship that I have had D/s wise, it has often been a by product of it. When that has occured I did not stop being the blood loveing, marking leaving, wants to hear you scream and cry sadist that I am. In fact, as Gloria says, those relationships have gotten more sadistic in a lot of ways because I have been able to feel connected on levels with those people that have driven me, inspired me and in some cases more easily allowed me to take further steps with them. To perhaps split a hair off a flying pigs back, if you are looking for a partner in a BDSM relationship so that you can find vanilla love, perhaps you need to re-define what love is for you. Love to me, simply is. Be it in a D/s relationshipship or a nilla one.

Justin Medlin

trinity wrote: (quoting someone who makes Glory say 'eeeep!') "Yeah. I remember meeting one guy who described how much he loved dominating women, and then spoke of how wonderful a submissive his wife was, only to lament "I wish *I* could dom her. She's the best submissive I've ever seen. But I can't. I love her too much."

Just for the record, I can just barely see one scenario under which this would make sense - maybe: IF the wife of the person in question is not into BDSM, but is still loved. Perhaps he was talking about her potential to sub.

But, in general, I tend to agree. If who you are is a dom or sub (or switch :) and you love someone, you aren't being YOU, nor are you being honest with the relationship, if you try NOT to be who you are.

(General posting)

What Trinity related (hitting a bullseye, striking a chord, and likely eliciting moans and groans from all over the world, was nicely addressed in Dr. Brame's eloquent response (particularly including sound effect), but here's an unfortunate observation to go along:

In almost EVERY case where I've heard that ridiculous notion, it proved to be a preamble for rationalizing why an outside relationship would be preferred. And THEN, the justification for deceit in going about it proved to be: I love him/her too much to hurt their feelings that I have to meet my needs elsewhere.

Anyone care to wager where that snowball goes? <g>

Be safe,
Thorn

To: GloriaBrame

Regarding your comment: <<Meanwhile, I confess a certain suspicion that people who dismiss romance and love in SM are using SM as a cover for their own romantic dysfunction and complex, perhaps uneasy, attitudes about love and intimacy. To me, Masters and Mistresses who declare they never fall in love with subs are basically declaring themselves incapable of strong emotion.>>, I think your suspicion is indeed often with merit. But let's also (at least) recognize that it can easily be an honest, open and up-front expression of independence among those who thoroughly enjoy the (physio-emotional) intensity of S&M without desiring anything more than that (for whatever reason, not necessarily due to automatic handicap). It may not be lack of ability to love -- and certainly not a lack of capacity for strong emotion -- but simply a viable reason that makes sense in the context of wherever they're at in their life at that moment in time. Possible?
;-)

Be safe,
Thorn

Thorn (and ultra),

Hey! I'm all for sex for the sake of sex and SM for the sake of depravity. :-) But I thought we were speaking specifically about people who think being into SM means you never have to deal with the sticky issues of romance and love. I know tons of casual players who aren't looking for more than a good spanking on a Saturday night. I also know people who "make do" by having no-strings or physical-sensation-only relationships, though they actually wish they could find a one-and-only to love. It's when you try to use SM as an excuse *not* to love because "love ruins SM" that I grow leery. Sounds to me like either sour grapes or, as previously stated, an intimacy issue that would exist whether or not they were into SM.

And even if you are the kind of person who doesn't want the complications of love and/or romance, find someone who shares your no-love code and go for what makes you happy. But please don't then try to explain it by claiming this is the way it must be (because, see above, "love ruins..." or insert "doms never fall in love with subs" or any other similar hockey puck made of flying pig poopie-doo). And PUH-LEESE don't try to convince subs who want to love and be loved that what they want is unrealistic or un-kinky.

Ultra, you wrote:

<<Do you feel this way about all people who choose not to let romantic love enter a D/s relationship>>

Call me a romantic (go on, I dare ya *g*) but..how can people choose or not choose love? And why would they, unless they're afraid that love is too...messy? hurtful? SCARY??

In my life, real love, of the falling-in-love, heart-goes-pit-a-pat kind of love has never been a choice. It happens or it doesn't. In SM which, I feel, is all about getting naked and raw and intimate and REAL, why would one draw the line at experiencing the most intense emotion of all?

I'll go color a valentine now and wait for y'all to explain it to me. ;-)

Glory

*note: I'm very glad Justin's moved to flying pigs because last week's yak's diarrhea was veering dangerously close to a hard limit on exotic animal poop

What I do know for certain is that many dominants who are as dominant as a dom can be, finding a submissive who vibrates according their personal percussive/emotional need, will fall in love. And the more often, and the more profoundly the vibration resonates between the dominant and the submissive, the more intensely the dominant falls in love.

Is that romance?

To: GloriaBrame

I think I'm glad I missed the yak thing. lol.

Regarding your follow-on post (#34 as I view it) and its clarified lanes, I couldn't agree more -- particularly on the issue of what some 'dominants' will apparently try to do in an effort to try to scam a submissive into thinking their view of/desire for love is somehow outside the realm of kink. (Where do people GET this stuff?? lol.)

The original premise (paraphrased as I understood it) was SMers didn't need the 'pretense' of romance in order to be sexually expressive (because we're generally more open to sexual expression already). The follow-up point (that romance is THEREFORE a vanilla concept which enables them to become sexually expressive) was intended to support the first statement; but I think we've shown it to be an unrelated and therefore unsupportive argument.

Expressions of affection in ALL forms have their place in BDSM. Do some NEED that in order to enjoy various aspects of BDSM? Of course not. Does that mean the concept is therefore 'vanilla'? Of course not. :-)

Be safe,
Thorn

Rabid: << trinity wrote: (quoting someone who makes Glory say 'eeeep!') "Yeah. I remember meeting one guy who described how much he loved dominating women, and then spoke of how wonderful a submissive his wife was, only to lament "I wish *I* could dom her. She's the best submissive I've ever seen. But I can't. I love her too much."
Just for the record, I can just barely see one scenario under which this would make sense - maybe: IF the wife of the person in question is not into BDSM, but is still loved. Perhaps he was talking about her potential to sub. >>

Nope. She *is* a submissive. As I understood it, may even have, or have had in the past, a Master who is not her husband. Her husband was saying that he was too stern/sadistic/whatever (not sure which) a dom to be comfortable dominating the wife he loved. And I, like Glory, say EEEEEEP. Loudly.

"Anyone care to wager where that snowball goes? <g>"

Thorn,
      alt.com?

Justin Medlin

Trinity,

ok - that wasn't clear to. In that case, I AGREE with everyone else that its just plain stupid, means there/s probbaly something else going on and is just plain wrong.

Glory said "Call me a romantic (go on, I dare ya *g*)"
You're a romantic :)

"but..how can people choose or not choose love? And why would they, unless they're afraid that love is too...messy? hurtful? SCARY??"

I guess I might have made this thread more complicated by bringing up a different but similar topic. Maybe I should have started a different thread. Actually, I wasn't talking about ppl who think that SM and romance are incompatible. I meant people who don't think romance in SM is necessary. As, I said earlier, my relationship is based on love. Dominance and submission is just the way we express that love. But I have a dominant friend, whose relationships with subs are based on dominance and submission. Love may occur, but it is not necessary.

"Dominance and submission is just the way we express that love. But I have a dominant friend, whose relationships with subs are based on dominance and submission. Love may occur, but it is not necessary."

I think your both right. I think for alot of people that a D/s relatioship can be based on love or may lead to love but does not require love to be successful.

Justin Medlin

memneth said, << I think for alot of people that a D/s relatioship can be based on love or may lead to love but does not require love to be successful. >>

I would tend to agree. Love and BDSM, similar to love and sex, don't always happen together; yet they are not mutually exclusive, either. As for me, I am a hopeless romantic, and D/s is, in a broad sense, the most romantic way of expressing love I can ever imagine.

goldi