Emotional Reliance

[Pure]

In the best or most typical cases of master slave [or similar, e.g. strong dom/me and sub; sadist-masochist] relationships that are involved and long term [even if don't include living together], what sort of emotional reliance is it good to have?

emotional reliance is a neutral word to indicate what is, in some of its stronger forms, "emotional dependence", but here we are not talking of pathological cases, as spelled out, below.

we assume the two persons, A and B are both of sound mental health. We are NOT speaking of "pathological" emotional reliance/dependence, as when the left-behind partner is driven to murder or suicide or serious threats of that sort.

So, speaking of the NON pathological cases, we say, A emotionally relies [depends] on B, if the relationship to B is extremely important to A as support for A's emotional functioning; so important as to be almost essential to A's well being. Were B to disappear, A would suffer significant and NOT-JUST-short-run emotional distress, in the form of sadness, fear, and hurt, etc. which be difficult, or almost intolerable for A to bear.

if A and B love each other, then we might say that 'emotional reliance' would possibly be an aspect of their loving. all love, of course, involves expectations, and is subject to disapppointment as shortfalls occur, as one partner comes to know the other and the other's behavior. but emotional reliance or dependence suggests something stronger; a need for emotional support, and the sorts of consequences mentioned above-- far more than disappointment-- if things go wrong.

 

[Fuckette]

I don't think there should be any emotional neediness in a BDSM situation.

 

[Marquis]

In the best or most typical cases of master slave [or similar, e.g. strong dom/me and sub; sadist-masochist] relationships that are involved and long term [even if don't include living together], what sort of emotional reliance is it good to have?

emotional reliance is a neutral word to indicate what is, in some of its stronger forms, "emotional dependence", but here we are not talking of pathological cases, as spelled out, below.

we assume the two persons, A and B are both of sound mental health. We are NOT speaking of "pathological" emotional reliance/dependence, as when the left-behind partner is driven to murder or suicide or serious threats of that sort.

So, speaking of the NON pathological cases, we say, A emotionally relies [depends] on B, if the relationship to B is extremely important to A as support for A's emotional functioning; so important as to be almost essential to A's well being. Were B to disappear, A would suffer significant and NOT-JUST-short-run emotional distress, in the form of sadness, fear, and hurt, etc. which be difficult, or almost intolerable for A to bear.

if A and B love each other, then we might say that 'emotional reliance' would possibly be an aspect of their loving. all love, of course, involves expectations, and is subject to disapppointment as shortfalls occur, as one partner comes to know the other and the other's behavior. but emotional reliance or dependence suggests something stronger; a need for emotional support, and the sorts of consequences mentioned above-- far more than disappointment-- if things go wrong.

This is an interesting topic and one I've thought about often.

I like your redefining of some of the terms, and I'd like to do the same.

The term co-dependence often carries a very negative connotation, but I'd like to suggest that co-dependence is actually the preferable form of interdependence.

Interdependence being people relying on each other and co-dependence being people relying on each other equally.

In my mind the point at which mutual reliance becomes negative doesn't relate to the degree of interdependence, but to the balance. That is, if one person is relying on another more than the other person can rely on them back, it becomes a problem.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

In my mind the point at which mutual reliance becomes negative doesn't relate to the degree of interdependence, but to the balance. That is, if one person is relying on another more than the other person can rely on them back, it becomes a problem.

I agree. Some people think that TPE is a kind of superlative abdication of responsibility for the slave. This is simply untrue. Master may have the final word on things but we discuss important decisions and take equal responsibility for the decision he makes. Our interdependence does need to be finely balanced. He would have no real use for a slave who was an emotional parasite and similarly, if Master depended upon me too much, I'd eventually become oppressed past the point where my slavery was tenable.

We do see our dynamic as a meeting of equals who have chosen very different, but complimentary roles. Just as the welfare of our relationship is a shared responsibility, so the balance of our emotional interdependence is vital for us to function effectively as a couple in the long term.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[intothewoods]

I don't know how to answer the poll, but in a D/s situation, just like any other relationship, both parties should turn to each other for emotional support. If it becomes one person relying on the other only, that person will eventually feel drained and resentful, and the relationship will break down. In general, it's also a good idea for people to rely on a variety of sources for their emotional support, not just their romantic partner.

At any rate, I don't think D/s makes a difference.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

At any rate, I don't think D/s makes a difference.

Agreed. This is a key issue in any dynamic.

 

[Pure]

intothewoords,

I don't think D/s makes a difference


i think it does; of course close M/s and D/s relationships have features in common with all close relationships.

this is because of the talk (at least) of "total power" or even "extreme power." one might ask, "can M wield extreme power over s (the slave), when M is emotionally reliant on the slave?" several responders have suggested there is equal reliance, and hence that M relies on s, emotionally.

i think the answer is 'yes,' but all the issues are NOT obvious. as an analogy, consider a woman who owns a horse, on whom she is relying to cross a hundred miles of desert. she still has total control, even over the horse's life and death.

 

[intothewoods]

I don't think D/s makes a difference


i think it does; of course close M/s and D/s relationships have features in common with all close relationships.

this is because of the talk (at least) of "total power" or even "extreme power." one might ask, "can M wield extreme power over s (the slave), when M is emotionally reliant on the slave?" several responders have suggested there is equal reliance, and hence that M relies on s, emotionally.

i think the answer is 'yes,' but all the issues are NOT obvious. as an analogy, consider a woman who owns a horse, on whom she is relying to cross a hundred miles of desert. she still has total control, even over the horse's life and death.

I personally think a relationship in which one person relies on the other completely, namely, the slave upon the Master, without any reciprocity, is not sustainable as a primary relationship. That is, I could see this working as a secondary relationship, in which both partners do have a primary relationship where both can rely on the other.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I don't think D/s makes a difference


i think it does; of course close M/s and D/s relationships have features in common with all close relationships.

this is because of the talk (at least) of "total power" or even "extreme power." one might ask, "can M wield extreme power over s (the slave), when M is emotionally reliant on the slave?" several responders have suggested there is equal reliance, and hence that M relies on s, emotionally.

i think the answer is 'yes,' but all the issues are NOT obvious. as an analogy, consider a woman who owns a horse, on whom she is relying to cross a hundred miles of desert. she still has total control, even over the horse's life and death.

This is true but there is still absolute co-dependence. The woman needs the horse as transport or she will die. The horse needs the woman to navigate or it will almost certainly fail to leave the desert and die. I would venture to add that on such a journey there would be a strong bond of emotional interdependence, even if only between a horse and rider. Horses are very intuitive and emotionally aware. In fact, they are often more aware of how a rider is feeling than any other form of verbal or non-verbal communication, in the same way that beloved pet dogs often are.

 

[Calabama]

In my life, I don't rely on him, and he doesn't rely on me.

We share a level of trust, understanding and compassion with one another. We test each others limits and enjoy each others victories.

If I left his life tomorrow, it wouldn't be the end of his world. He wouldn't be crushed.... probably a bit sad and miss me, but there just isn't that deep need. We enjoy what we have together, but it's not the end of the world if it ends.


*Shrugs* But that's just me.

 

[YourCaptor]

Hmm, well, its difficult to picture the relationship you are taking about Pure. I think I keep falling back on the traditional vanilla depiction with D/s added in. In that case I would say the slave is dependent on the master, however in reality I don’t think tradition ever hold up to denotative like proportions. When adding my own philosophy to the mix I would say they are interdependent but in different ways.

The slave needs the master, if they didn’t they would not be a slave.

The master wants the slave, otherwise they wouldn’t not keep the slave.

In other words the slave gives and the master takes, and I believe there is more investment needed in giving. Especially when you are a slave and what you are giving is yourself.

 

[BeachGurl2]

I personally think a relationship in which one person relies on the other completely, namely, the slave upon the Master, without any reciprocity, is not sustainable as a primary relationship. That is, I could see this working as a secondary relationship, in which both partners do have a primary relationship where both can rely on the other.

I agree completely with this, ITW. I hear it often said that emotional involvement of any level beyond simple caring on the part of the D-type makes the dominance more difficult and therefore isn't preferred. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but as an s-type, I need to know that my emotional investment is returned. And as an s-type, a 'relationship' isn't possible for me without that emotional reliance. In fact, I think there are many s-types who would ultimately feel that being in an emotionally one-sided D/s or M/s relationship would be detrimental to their emotional well-being. Knowing that you are submitting everything to someone who is not emotionally invested does wear you down over time.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[madetotakeit]

I think that there needs to be emotional dependence in any extended relationship. I don't see how emotional dependence in a PYL makes him weaker any more than it makes the pyl stronger. It is true in the vanilla world, but I see it as more so in ours. As beachgurl2 said, submitting to someone who is not emotionally invested will wear you down over time.

We are human not simply the roles that we exist in. As humans we need emotional connection, support. We need to know that it is returned for a healthy relationship. In a life that requires such a deep level of trust why would one consider not looking to the other? The PYL has to trust in the pyl just as much as the pyl does the PYL although what they need may be very different indeed.

 

[Pure]

note to beach gurl

BGbut as an s-type, I need to know that my emotional investment is returned.

you and some other posters have said this, and i see its rationale.

OTOH, and related to one problem this thread is to explore, consider this:

M returns your investment, you being the s, slave. we assume a rather extreme degree of power/control in this M/s, or owner/pet setup; that's what the agreements say, "I, s, am yours and will do whatever you say." M: "I accept your unconditional service; you are now mine; and you know i am reasonable and sane person."

Case 1: M orders something rather difficult, near your hard limit; something chancey you're reluctant to do. nothing that would put you in hospital or create legal probs, of course. you say "m, sir, that will make me very uncomfortable; and likely distressed. when distressed, esp. distressed by something you've caused, i will become distant; and also unresponsive sexually; this is not a choice, just how i respond; how i will respond, even as i try to obey. i don't know if you want that. consider this as a prediction, not a threat of any kind; but would you reconsider your order."

Case 2: s having misbehaved faces a 'consequence'. she's to be given a week of minimal contact to 'think over what she's done.'. s is willing, and makes no overt statements, but M thinks the following, and s is quite aware of it: "in the week s is on the shelf, i will miss her. i will miss beling close to her and fucking her. perhaps a day would be sufficent as a consequence. maybe her misbehavior was not so bad.'

now i'm not talking about beach gurl in particular; i will assume she has sterling motives. BUT hypothetically, the s here is in a position at very least, to exert 'leverage' on the outcome; perhpas even manipulate the outcome. so... isn't the equal degree of reliance/dependence [of M on s] a possible undercutting factor [in M's power], as illustrated in the cases?

 

[YourCaptor]

I hear it often said that emotional involvement of any level beyond simple caring on the part of the D-type makes the dominance more difficult and therefore isn't preferred.

To me, this is totally falls. I cant get involved in something D/s with a girl unless I care about her, and its not gonna be an extensive relationship unless I love her.

I really don't give a damn about anyones submission unless it would mean something to me.

Sure I could pick up a sub I didn't care about and make her clean my house, but other then having a clean house it would do nothing for me.

BGbut as an s-type, I need to know that my emotional investment is returned.

you and some other posters have said this, and i see its rationale.

OTOH, and related to one problem this thread is to explore, consider this:

M returns your investment, you being the s, slave. we assume a rather extreme degree of power/control in this M/s, or owner/pet setup; that's what the agreements say, "I, s, am yours and will do whatever you say." M: "I accept your unconditional service; you are now mine; and you know i am reasonable and sane person."

Case 1: M orders something rather difficult, near your hard limit; something chancey you're reluctant to do. nothing that would put you in hospital or create legal probs, of course. you say "m, sir, that will make me very uncomfortable; and likely distressed. when distressed, esp. distressed by something you've caused, i will become distant; and also unresponsive sexually; this is not a choice, just how i respond; how i will respond, even as i try to obey. i don't know if you want that. consider this as a prediction, not a threat of any kind; but would you reconsider your order."

Case 2: s having misbehaved faces a 'consequence'. she's to be given a week of minimal contact to 'think over what she's done.'. s is willing, and makes no overt statements, but M thinks the following, and s is quite aware of it: "in the week s is on the shelf, i will miss her. i will miss beling close to her and fucking her. perhaps a day would be sufficent as a consequence. maybe her misbehavior was not so bad.'

now i'm not talking about beach gurl in particular; i will assume she has sterling motives. BUT hypothetically, the s here is in a position at very least, to exert 'leverage' on the outcome; perhpas even manipulate the outcome. so... isn't the equal degree of reliance/dependence [of M on s] a possible undercutting factor [in M's power], as illustrated in the cases?

I don't think your examples are accurate, at least not to me.

If she doesn't do what I want, and it was something edgy, its back to training, conditioning, discipline, etc. If she gave me that line about not being able to preform as well, I would just have a good laugh. Even if she doesn't feel up to it, it is still her job to make it good. Was she to be on the "shelf", and I wanted her, I would just have her, that doesn't detract from her set back. Minimal contact is not exactly my style anyhow.

 

[FurryFury]

If the reliance is reciprocal in some ways, and is moderate, instead of co-dependent, that's what works for us. That's what I see as being a "healthy" relationship.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

BGbut as an s-type, I need to know that my emotional investment is returned.

you and some other posters have said this, and i see its rationale.

OTOH, and related to one problem this thread is to explore, consider this:

M returns your investment, you being the s, slave. we assume a rather extreme degree of power/control in this M/s, or owner/pet setup; that's what the agreements say, "I, s, am yours and will do whatever you say." M: "I accept your unconditional service; you are now mine; and you know i am reasonable and sane person."

Case 1: M orders something rather difficult, near your hard limit; something chancey you're reluctant to do. nothing that would put you in hospital or create legal probs, of course. you say "m, sir, that will make me very uncomfortable; and likely distressed. when distressed, esp. distressed by something you've caused, i will become distant; and also unresponsive sexually; this is not a choice, just how i respond; how i will respond, even as i try to obey. i don't know if you want that. consider this as a prediction, not a threat of any kind; but would you reconsider your order."

Case 2: s having misbehaved faces a 'consequence'. she's to be given a week of minimal contact to 'think over what she's done.'. s is willing, and makes no overt statements, but M thinks the following, and s is quite aware of it: "in the week s is on the shelf, i will miss her. i will miss beling close to her and fucking her. perhaps a day would be sufficent as a consequence. maybe her misbehavior was not so bad.'

now i'm not talking about beach gurl in particular; i will assume she has sterling motives. BUT hypothetically, the s here is in a position at very least, to exert 'leverage' on the outcome; perhpas even manipulate the outcome. so... isn't the equal degree of reliance/dependence [of M on s] a possible undercutting factor [in M's power], as illustrated in the cases?

I will never cease to be amazed and impressed by your capacity to take a relatively simple topic and thoroughly complicate it.

 

[BeachGurl2]

BGbut as an s-type, I need to know that my emotional investment is returned.

you and some other posters have said this, and i see its rationale.

OTOH, and related to one problem this thread is to explore, consider this:

M returns your investment, you being the s, slave. we assume a rather extreme degree of power/control in this M/s, or owner/pet setup; that's what the agreements say, "I, s, am yours and will do whatever you say." M: "I accept your unconditional service; you are now mine; and you know i am reasonable and sane person."

Case 1: M orders something rather difficult, near your hard limit; something chancey you're reluctant to do. nothing that would put you in hospital or create legal probs, of course. you say "m, sir, that will make me very uncomfortable; and likely distressed. when distressed, esp. distressed by something you've caused, i will become distant; and also unresponsive sexually; this is not a choice, just how i respond; how i will respond, even as i try to obey. i don't know if you want that. consider this as a prediction, not a threat of any kind; but would you reconsider your order."

Case 2: s having misbehaved faces a 'consequence'. she's to be given a week of minimal contact to 'think over what she's done.'. s is willing, and makes no overt statements, but M thinks the following, and s is quite aware of it: "in the week s is on the shelf, i will miss her. i will miss beling close to her and fucking her. perhaps a day would be sufficent as a consequence. maybe her misbehavior was not so bad.'

now i'm not talking about beach gurl in particular; i will assume she has sterling motives. BUT hypothetically, the s here is in a position at very least, to exert 'leverage' on the outcome; perhpas even manipulate the outcome. so... isn't the equal degree of reliance/dependence [of M on s] a possible undercutting factor [in M's power], as illustrated in the cases?

Let me make sure i understand your point, Pure. Basically what you're saying is that because the D-type is emotionally invested, that gives the s-type 'leverage' so that the s-type now has the power? I'm not sure I buy that. If he's truly a D-type, then just because he has emotions for me shouldn't change his natural dominance. And if it does change it, I would think it would be for the better. Emotions aren't weakness. They SHOULD make us stronger as a pair. But that's just my opinion.

Ultimately, the punishment should fit the crime and should be something the D-type can live with, too. So what if he decides he can't do the silent treatment thing - actually, I couldn't be with someone who used the silent treatment for baggage reasons, but I'll use your example - so he'll choose something else. The punishment will still happen, just in a different way.

And I totally don't understand your example number 1. No clue where you're going with that one.

 

[YourCaptor]

And I totally don't understand your example number 1. No clue where you're going with that one.

I think he's making the point that the sub can influence the dom. In this example the sub says it can't perform the task to the doms expectations. As a response the dom supposedly changes their mind.

No offense Pure, but that would definitely make me laugh.

 

[Pure]

some notes.

posters from both top and bottom have made good points about my clumsy example of case 1. it was an attempt to consider what amounts to a manipulation by a 'slave' of the master's desire for hot sex. "if i do assigned task x, i will become sexually unresposive."

as your captor says, this is so tranparent as to be laughable.

a friend of mine, rather knowledgeable about 'top' psychology, made a number of points on the issues of case one, elaborating a deeper understanding for me. there is a fundamental misconception, said my friend, that the limitations of the slave are limitations on the master's power. so the slave's attempt to 'use' the limitations for control--should it occur--must miscarry. i think y c has made a similar point.

i illustrate the point with this, my example: every slave has limits. probably not one of them could, for exampl, lift the master's car. but the slave's inability to lift 1500 lbs, in particular to carry out the order, "lift my car" hardly affects the master's power and authority.

if my owner says 'lift the car', i will try my best. likely i will fail. arguably her authority is reinforced, not undermined, for i will feel bad about failing.

likewise, normal effects on sexual responsiveness are hardly news to the master, and do not affect her power. my example: since i am not a shoe fetishist, the master's order, 'lick the sole of my shoe' would probably cause me, if already aroused, to lose my erection. the master is likely aware of that. had she wanted to sustain the erection, she would have assigned another task.

so returning to my friend's point: the master will follow the master's agenda. my attempt to use the hypothetical slave's consequent "distance" [if task x is done] as a bargaining chip would necessarily fail. it is perhaps the master's agenda to cause me to feel distance for a time. one must assume reasonable intelligence. if the master wants to encourage feelings of closeness in the slave, the means are rather obvious.

the master, in short, works with the limitations, the normal human attributes of the slave. it's rather absurd, as my friend pointed out, to think that the master says "fly!" and when that doesn't happen, thinks, "i guess my total power over the slave doesn't exist."

total power in that abstract--and wholly irrelevant--sense does not exist. i have total power over my dog, however, in the practical sense. the fact that a hypothetical order "leap over this fence", where the fence is 6 feet tall, cannot be carried out, is hardly a limit on me and my power. i will expect to see the doggy, being devoted and obedient, to try his best to jump the fence; i don't rue my 'limited power' or even feel disappointed in myself or him, as lacking something.

the above points also apply, as beach gurl suggested, to the master's emotional responses. to give some examples of mine, regarding parent and child: the parent feels good about the child's successes and sad about his failures (where success was possible).

the parent feels close to the child if he is sitting on the parent's lap, in a hug, and perhaps not so close if the child is outside, on the task of sweeping the sidewalk. none of these responses diminish the parent's authority. the parent's ability to issue the order 'go sweep the sidewalk' is hardly affected.

so thanks to all for helping me find truth. i hope i have represented others' views correctly. the thread topic was intended to shed light on issues, on i hope this happens for other readers besides myself.

 

[YourCaptor]

Out of curiosity, you mentioned this thread stemmed out of the pat thread. How so?

 

[Pure]

note to YC

Out of curiosity, you mentioned this thread stemmed out of the pat thread. How so?

a number of people read 'pat' as emotionally dependent as well as deferential and obedient; that issue was not specified in the original thumbnail.

as evidence of a connection, though, i point you to the post of tania, #163, in the thread: she specifies similarities to pat and seems possibly emotionally dependent in the relationships she describes.

(note i used the term 'emotionally reliant' as a more neutral term for purposes of discussion.)

 

[catalina_francisco]

I miss Pure exercising our brains

 

[Stella_Omega]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm0r97r4YJ1qjgau7o1_400.jpg
http://secrets.malesubmissionart.com/post/6006959583/image-is-of-gustav-vigelands-sculpture-kneeling

 

[switchbitch]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm0r97r4YJ1qjgau7o1_400.jpg

Stella that is beautiful and incredibly apt.