LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Is there a difference between a master and a lover?

By textbook definition? Yes. A lover is generically an equal while a master is higher up.

By my own head? Only when both lovers are honest lovers.
Mistress loves her pet, pet loves his mistress. They practice an owner / pet relationship under the consent of both; this means that the mistress is in charge of what goes on, but the pet only allows it through consent as a lover.

If it were a fake relationship, in which the pet were in love with a faking owner, the definitions don't apply.

So, I agree with Mouse. In a genuine Master-Pet relationship between lovers, there's no difference. And that's the only time you could actually get a difference between the words, in application.
 
Kikori said:
By textbook definition? Yes. A lover is generically an equal while a master is higher up.

By my own head? Only when both lovers are honest lovers.
Mistress loves her pet, pet loves his mistress. They practice an owner / pet relationship under the consent of both; this means that the mistress is in charge of what goes on, but the pet only allows it through consent as a lover.

If it were a fake relationship, in which the pet were in love with a faking owner, the definitions don't apply.

So, I agree with Mouse. In a genuine Master-Pet relationship between lovers, there's no difference. And that's the only time you could actually get a difference between the words, in application.
Click to expand...

A PYL is not higher than a pyl; they are simply people operating from opposite ends of a spectrum (or somewhere in between).

I'm not touching the fake thing with a ten foot pole. ;)

I don't know that it's anything special to a Master/pet relationship, as much as it is an awareness that even BDSM based relationships are relationships at their core.
 
Thanks for responding Kikori and CutieMouse.

Here's how I'm thinking about it.

It seems to me that M/s sex and sex between lovers are, at some point at least, predicated on different things. Sex between lovers is predicated on mutual sharing. Each lover is involved in a spontaneous communication of desires and sexual generosity. Their lovemaking is a fugue that writes itself. None of the notes are planned. None are more important than the others. They simply flow and ebb together, until the lovers, overcome by the act and the moment, cum together and then drift mindlessly into serenity or sleep in one another's arms.

M/s sex is different. It is planned by the Master. He may prioritize his PYL's sexual pleasure over his own, but even if he does so, the important thing is that his plan is realized and his desires are gratified. Even if the culmination of the sex act is that the PYL has a soul shattering orgasm, and the Master merely grins that he has accomplished this, the ultimate gratification of the PYL is that she (or he) made Master smile.

For my wife and I there are other issues, but before I irretrievably muddy the waters...
 
Hi Albee

Although Master does take the lead, I wouldn't say that much of what he does is planned. The BDSM side of things means we have a much wider variety of sexual activities that we enjoy together. We're equals who have chosen different roles. Master might ask me what I want at times and he might do that because he wants to spoil me, to add to his internal list of options and see if we're in a similar sexual mood or he might ask just for the sadistic pleasure of taking things in a completely opposite direction. We do communicate a lot and he does take my needs into consideration - when they are needs rather than wants. For my part, I am more than happy to be guided by his mood and whim.

There are some kinksters who manage to incorporate S&M, bondage and so on into all sexual play but Master and I do occasionally have slow, tender, pain free sex and it's as much an expression of love as everything else. I think that Master's who feel they have to be uberkinky 24/7 are limiting themselves. If Master is feeling particularly loving and soppy towards me, he might spend half an hour going down on me before some slow, passionate lovemaking. That doesn't make him less of a Master, it just makes him free to act on all his sexual impulses - not just the dominant & sadistic ones. There are different ways of exercising power. If he's feeling horny but lazy he might demand a blowjob or he might just lay flat on his back and demand that I fuck him senseless - either way, it's all service, being on top does not put me in charge.

Everything is about the mindset here, which is why this is a generally individualised thing that a couple define for themselves.
 
Um yes.

I don't have romantic soul-merging stare into your eyes sex with my slave, cat, car, or any other belongings. Toy with a slave, sure, use sexually, put the pinch on till we're closer than I could ever get by fucking someone, yes. There are upsides.

A lot of people have no problem overlapping these things. When I'm *in love* in the romantic sense with someone, I can boss them around in bed, but I lose any interest in ownership - that whole notion is completely incompatible with my poly hands-off what's best for both of us fundamentally more egalitarian approach to romantic love. I don't want to possess my partner, that makes them not-partner. I like M's pliability and willingness to please me and enjoyment of being manhandled in bed, but I can't really see myself enjoying a world in which nothing is on the table for him to reject.

I do want to possess my slave, clearly.

When I own someone I find my intimacy in sadism and platonic connection. They're two different needs for me, ill served by trying to make everything fit in one container.
 
Last edited:
Netzach said:
Um yes.

I don't have romantic soul-merging stare into your eyes sex with my slave, cat, car, or any other belongings. Toy with a slave, sure, use sexually, put the pinch on till we're closer than I could ever get by fucking someone, yes. There are upsides.

A lot of people have no problem overlapping these things. When I'm *in love* in the romantic sense with someone, I can boss them around in bed, but I lose any interest in ownership - that whole notion is completely incompatible with my poly hands-off what's best for both of us fundamentally more egalitarian approach to romantic love. I don't want to possess my partner, that makes them not-partner. I like M's pliability and willingness to please me and enjoyment of being manhandled in bed, but I can't really see myself enjoying a world in which nothing is on the table for him to reject.

I do want to possess my slave, clearly.

When I own someone I find my intimacy in sadism and platonic connection. They're two different needs for me, ill served by trying to make everything fit in one container.
Click to expand...

*squirms gently at her spot, doing her best to force those wicked thoughts from her -cough-innocent-cough- mind.*

I apologize for that, however that's a lovely explanation. Further more this answer and myinnerslut's really show a profound difference in how people approach the same term. It's not unlike "what's the right way for a Dom/me to dominate?" Putting aside the people who truly believe in a correct form for domination, it's a trick question, "however they damn well want to!" Though in reality 'they' tends to actually refer to both the Dom/me and the sub, and less so the sub in the the M/s field. Are their Masters who blend Cyrano de Bergerac with François de Sade? Sure, though that is entirely up to the Master and oft the type of person her/his sub happens to be.

I know in my own relationship with moon, I'm hardly her lover. While I do in fact love her and she I, we are not... equal. I have a very well chalked out place, it happens to be right by her side and is clearly labeled pet... it also has a poppet treat in it. :cattail: I think she might agree that for her at least, there's a clear distinction between your pets and your lovers.

-poppet

*Resumes her wicked thoughts and squirming.... also snags the poppet treat*
 
Everybody seems to be making one point perfectly clear: M/s relationships are specific to the people involved (I was going to say couple, but then I thought of Netzach).

So, I'll speak for my wife and I.

First, a bit of background. We disagree on whether we're 24/7 or not. She wants to be, I don't. Firstly, she's wiser, smarter and more capable than I in a number of areas. It makes no sense to me that I should even pretend to be Master in terms of raising our children. When we disagree, I defer 90% of the time. I could list other stuff, but she is the power behind much of our decision-making.

As well, though my wife likes to think of us as a 24/7 D/s relationship, when we actually tried this, she chafed at my leadership and we fought bitterly.

And finally, I spend a lot of my day at work telling people what to do. It's the last thing I want to do when I get home.

On the other hand, my wife likes to link things like housework to D/s. She says it motivates her by associating sexual pleasure with menial work. More power to her.

But our most intense D/s relationship is confined to the bedroom. We've been married over 20 years. For most of those years we had a lot of vanilla sex, and neither of us really got off. We're now exploring our respective fetishistic natures, coming harder and more often, and achieving as surprising and newfound intimacy. (Interestingly, I find myself getting sexually aroused writing that sentence. I think uncovering very private parts of ourselves to lovers we trust is highly erotic in itself.)

Jesus. This is sounding like a confessional poem. I'll cut to the chase.

In the bedroom, I find being a Master very different from being a lover. Rather than searching for unconscious synergy, I act as a martinet. In return, I expect her to passively do exactly what I tell her.

Often, I cater carefully to her very idiosyncratic desires. When I do this, she can take pleasure from being catered to, from gratefulness, or just from the mere coincidence that what I happen to be doing turns her on so much. But the bottom line is, I don't give a shit. I only care about the power I exercise over her sexuality.

Other times, I selfishly demand that she fulfill my own fetishistic cravings. Here she can take spiritual or sexual pleasure in being a cipher to my desires.

We often kiss.

But there is one thing we never do. We never kiss like lovers, seeing where the spontaneity of our tongues takes us. It is always according to my plan. I am always in control. Of myself. Of her. Of the sex act.
 
Albee said:
Everybody seems to be making one point perfectly clear: M/s relationships are specific to the people involved (I was going to say couple, but then I thought of Netzach).

So, I'll speak for my wife and I.

First, a bit of background. We disagree on whether we're 24/7 or not. She wants to be, I don't. Firstly, she's wiser, smarter and more capable than I in a number of areas. It makes no sense to me that I should even pretend to be Master in terms of raising our children. When we disagree, I defer 90% of the time. I could list other stuff, but she is the power behind much of our decision-making.

As well, though my wife likes to think of us as a 24/7 D/s relationship, when we actually tried this, she chafed at my leadership and we fought bitterly.

And finally, I spend a lot of my day at work telling people what to do. It's the last thing I want to do when I get home.

On the other hand, my wife likes to link things like housework to D/s. She says it motivates her by associating sexual pleasure with menial work. More power to her.

But our most intense D/s relationship is confined to the bedroom. We've been married over 20 years. For most of those years we had a lot of vanilla sex, and neither of us really got off. We're now exploring our respective fetishistic natures, coming harder and more often, and achieving as surprising and newfound intimacy. (Interestingly, I find myself getting sexually aroused writing that sentence. I think uncovering very private parts of ourselves to lovers we trust is highly erotic in itself.)

Jesus. This is sounding like a confessional poem. I'll cut to the chase.

In the bedroom, I find being a Master very different from being a lover. Rather than searching for unconscious synergy, I act as a martinet. In return, I expect her to passively do exactly what I tell her.

Often, I cater carefully to her very idiosyncratic desires. When I do this, she can take pleasure from being catered to, from gratefulness, or just from the mere coincidence that what I happen to be doing turns her on so much. But the bottom line is, I don't give a shit. I only care about the power I exercise over her sexuality.

Other times, I selfishly demand that she fulfill my own fetishistic cravings. Here she can take spiritual or sexual pleasure in being a cipher to my desires.

We often kiss.

But there is one thing we never do. We never kiss like lovers, seeing where the spontaneity of our tongues takes us. It is always according to my plan. I am always in control. Of myself. Of her. Of the sex act.
Click to expand...

Random question - do you feel that giving her the freedom to do her own thing in areas in which her knowledge/experience is superior [to yours] gets in the way of having a "Master/slave" relationship?
 
CutieMouse said:
Random question - do you feel that giving her the freedom to do her own thing in areas in which her knowledge/experience is superior [to yours] gets in the way of having a "Master/slave" relationship?
Click to expand...

No. Not at all. In fact, the opposite. When I felt obliged to control her in those areas I felt oppressed. Sometimes that was because I was sticking my nose into areas that I wanted to keep out of. Others times, I got extremely frustrated trying to budge an immovable object.

I think we're both happier keeping those things out of the M/s relationship.

For me, most of our M/s stuff occurs in the bedroom. Additionally we pepper our days with little bits of play admonition and bossing around.

While I'm not actually controlling her a lot, this tinges much of our relationship with a BDSM/M/s flavor. It's fun, and, I think especially for my wife, emotionally gratifying. It is certainly brings us closer through shared play and creativity.
 
Last edited:
Albee said:
Everybody seems to be making one point perfectly clear: M/s relationships are specific to the people involved.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly, as with all relationships be they vanilla or kink. People are still people after all. :)
 
I don't know if you could call Master a lover in the traditional sense or not. Certainly, he's been more of a lover to me than any of the actual lovers I've had in the past. I'm not sure if that alone qualifies, though. We have an interesting and complicated relationship.

I'd say that he's a little of both. If, however, I had to choose between being his lover and being his slave, then slave (or pet or whatever) wins hands-down every time. I can find lovers anywhere. But Masters like him aren't just sitting on street corners with "Free to a Good Home" signs hanging around their necks. ;)
 
BiBunny said:
I'd say that he's a little of both. If, however, I had to choose between being his lover and being his slave, then slave (or pet or whatever) wins hands-down every time. I can find lovers anywhere. But Masters like him aren't just sitting on street corners with "Free to a Good Home" signs hanging around their necks. ;)
Click to expand...

Sigh, I know... I looked. :( But yeah, that's how I feel about it, while you can find lovers you work with (especially if you're poly) it's significantly harder to find a person whom you can build the level of trust needed to submit to. Maybe i have a screwed up definition of lover but to me it's more of a casual term to me.

On a related side note, you can't build a master either, I know i'm not the only person to try this. :rolleyes:

-poppet
 
According to dictionary.com:

lov⋅er
   /ˈlʌvər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [luhv-er] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who is in love with another.
2. a person who has a sexual or romantic relationship with another.
3. a person with whom one conducts an extramarital sexual affair.
4. a person who has a strong enjoyment or liking for something, as specified: a lover of music.
5. a person who loves, esp. a person who has or shows a warm and general affectionate regard for others: a lover of mankind.
Click to expand...

A lover is someone who loves. So, as far as I'm concerned, if you love your PYL they are your lover.
 
Lover applies to most people. Master does not. A Master can be a lover. Or he can be cold and callous and have them work the fields all day and beat them when they run away.
 
WriterDom said:
Lover applies to most people. Master does not. A Master can be a lover. Or he can be cold and callous and have them work the fields all day and beat them when they run away.
Click to expand...

That's why I said if you love your PYL (who is quite often a master) s/he's your lover.
 
What are you seeking in each?

.....Whats a Master...... Or a Lover for that matter....

It sounds like a stupid question to some, but is the definitions are essential for answering this...

I dont need your answer, just consider your own definition and ask yourself if those qualities are some you seek in a lover....
 
For me they differ, while in some ways are the same. I cannot claim like some that having a Master has widened my sexual experience or given wider scope for what we do sexually as most things in a purely sexual sense I had experienced before entering a M/s relationship, and not just once or twice...even in the sense of things often thought to be endemic to D/s type relationships were often features on some level in some of my previous sexual experiences. What is different though is the mental attitude and depth of the relationship and commitment in a way which is not so easily explained. So while he is both Master and lover, I would not say he is comparable to what most would term a lover.

Catalina:catroar:
 
Before letting this thread die a natural death, I'll give one more shot at answering this question for myself.

At the risk of sounding really sophmoric, I'm gonna take a trip back to Professor Sinaiko's philosophy class.

For me, a lover is the descendant of Dionysis: spontaneous, lustful, in love and in love with being in love. He or she joins in spirit with others until they have become one, governed by the unpredictable fugue of their shared infatuation and desire.

The master stands alone. He is not spontaneous, and certainly not in love with being in love. He is driven by the certainty of his own judgments and rightness. His command may serve his own or his lover's desire, but he is never governed by his desire. Who cares what he is governed by? It is of no relevance. The only thing relevant is that he governs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dhabidommetrix
What's the difference between a Dom and a Top?
Replies
14
Views
339
Exploringwife46
E
Dhabidommetrix
What’s the difference between a dominant and a sadist?
Replies
3
Views
124
ToPleaseHim
ToPleaseHim
TheRedLantern
How does it feel to be a Dominant?
Replies
12
Views
454
PleasureDaddy
PleasureDaddy
C
submission forced or coaxed
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
CEOescape
CEOescape
T
Panty sniffing/selling - Is there a femdom aspect?
Replies
2
Views
160
Dearelliot
D
Back
Top