Dual relationship...or too much confusion?

[Owlz]

At this early stage, I find myself in a sort of 'dual relationship' with my cyber-sub. Those are: B/D and D/s. Are there such relationships, or should I further examine the relationship and 'pick one?'

(I have a strange sense of vuja dé that I've asked this before. )

 

[Ebonyfire]

At this early stage, I find myself in a sort of 'dual relationship' with my cyber-sub. Those are: B/D and D/s. Are there such relationships, or should I further examine the relationship and 'pick one?'

(I have a strange sense of vuja dé that I've asked this before. )

You are being too literal. You have one relationship with one person. What you do in that relationship may vary, but if only one other person involved, then it is one relationship.

BDSM is just a label imposed by others to group activities. That is all it is, a term.

You do not have to own that term.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

... I find myself in a sort of 'dual relationship' with my cyber-sub. Those are: B/D and D/s. Are there such relationships, or should I further examine the relationship and 'pick one?' ...

Why do you think them dual?

You don't have to pick a flavor and eat only that.

This ain't a digital world ... think analog and flow up and down the scale as you wish.

 

[Owlz]

Re: Re: Dual relationship...or too much confusion?

Why do you think them dual?

You don't have to pick a flavor and eat only that.

This ain't a digital world ... think analog and flow up and down the scale as you wish.

I'm thinking dual because, as with the BDSM emblem, there are three types of relationship (if I'm not horribly mistaken): B/D; D/s; and S/M. There's even a thread poll about what type of relationship people are in (including Gorean, about which I know nothing an therefore will not comment. As the saying goes, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.')

My interests fall into the first to 'categories.' However, if I understand you correctly, many in the lifestyle meld practises of two or all of these relationship types, creating their own 'version,' thus rendering it label-less and, in fact, un-label-able. Is that correct?

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Re: Re: Re: Dual relationship...or too much confusion?

I'm thinking dual because, as with the BDSM emblem, there are three types of relationship (if I'm not horribly mistaken): B/D; D/s; and S/M. There's even a thread poll about what type of relationship people are in (including Gorean, about which I know nothing an therefore will not comment. As the saying goes, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.')

My interests fall into the first to 'categories.' However, if I understand you correctly, many in the lifestyle meld practises of two or all of these relationship types, creating their own 'version,' thus rendering it label-less and, in fact, un-label-able. Is that correct?

We've had posts before about semantics and pigeon holing ...

The only thing i can suggest is you don't worry about labels.

Feel free to pursue what you wish, consensually with your partner, and enjoy yourself.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: Re: Re: Dual relationship...or too much confusion?

I'm thinking dual because, as with the BDSM emblem, there are three types of relationship (if I'm not horribly mistaken): B/D; D/s; and S/M. There's even a thread poll about what type of relationship people are in (including Gorean, about which I know nothing an therefore will not comment. As the saying goes, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.')

My interests fall into the first to 'categories.' However, if I understand you correctly, many in the lifestyle meld practises of two or all of these relationship types, creating their own 'version,' thus rendering it label-less and, in fact, un-label-able. Is that correct?

For us we incorporate all three levels but give it little thought. For ease of understanding when communicating with anyone else we usually define it as BDSM or Master/slave. Though there is much written out there, it is very much up to the individuals involved. Labels are good for giving some guidance to others, such as when searching for someone to be with who complements your needs, but is not necessarily a rigid form of referral. Checklists alone will highlight this. And don't worry about appearing a fool....most here have felt that at some point so most try not to judge others as we are all on a similar journey which never ends in its levels of understanding and new things to learn.

Catalina

 

[Owlz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dual relationship...or too much confusion?

For us we incorporate all three levels but give it little thought. For ease of understanding when communicating with anyone else we usually define it as BDSM or Master/slave. Though there is much written out there, it is very much up to the individuals involved. Labels are good for giving some guidance to others, such as when searching for someone to be with who complements your needs, but is not necessarily a rigid form of referral. Checklists alone will highlight this. And don't worry about appearing a fool....most here have felt that at some point so most try not to judge others as we are all on a similar journey which never ends in its levels of understanding and new things to learn.

Catalina

Thanks, Catalina. As it is right now, my littleone and I are very happy. I'm going to spend less time worrying (said the professional worry wort!) and more time having fun with my littleone and enjoying this journey of exploration, experimentation, and discovery.

Owlz, happier than he's been in a long, long time.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: Re: Dual relationship...or too much confusion?

I'm thinking dual because, as with the BDSM emblem, there are three types of relationship (if I'm not horribly mistaken): B/D; D/s; and S/M. There's even a thread poll about what type of relationship people are in (including Gorean, about which I know nothing an therefore will not comment. As the saying goes, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.')

My interests fall into the first to 'categories.' However, if I understand you correctly, many in the lifestyle meld practises of two or all of these relationship types, creating their own 'version,' thus rendering it label-less and, in fact, un-label-able. Is that correct?

Ah, but the term BDSM does not describe relationships, but activities. bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism do not define a relationship, but some activities and mindsets that a relationship can draw upon.

Couples define their relationships to suit themselves.

 

[Owlz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dual relationship...or too much confusion?

Ah, but the term BDSM does not describe relationships, but activities. bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism do not define a relationship, but some activities and mindsets that a relationship can draw upon.

Couples define their relationships to suit themselves.

Thank you again, Ebony.

Owlz, always learning

 

[FungiUg]

Re: Re: Re: Dual relationship...or too much confusion?

I'm thinking dual because, as with the BDSM emblem, there are three types of relationship (if I'm not horribly mistaken): B/D; D/s; and S/M. There's even a thread poll about what type of relationship people are in (including Gorean, about which I know nothing an therefore will not comment. As the saying goes, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.')

Hauls out his labels soapbox again

Being a "dominant" is about getting what YOU want. Not about living up to labels.

If the labels fit what you are doing, fine. If not, screw the labels.

A relationship is simply the interaction between two (or more) people. It's not a "thing" per se, but something created by interaction. It may have many aspects. You don't need to define your relationship by a label, nor do you have to live up to a label. You can, however, use a lable to describe an aspect of a relationship.

If your relationship is purely one thing... then it's not a healthy relationship. People are complex, and interaction between complex people is even more complex. So a relationship will have levels, multiple aspects and so on.

But... it's still just the one relationship. Unless you have multiple personality disorder, or you are in a poly situation... and that's a whole nother kettle of fish!

Just relax, be who you are, do what you want to do. And if the label fits, fine. But don't try to fit yourself to a label!

Kicks soapbox back into the corner.

 

[cellis]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dual relationship...or too much confusion?

Hauls out his labels soapbox again

Being a "dominant" is about getting what YOU want. Not about living up to labels.

If the labels fit what you are doing, fine. If not, screw the labels.

A relationship is simply the interaction between two (or more) people. It's not a "thing" per se, but something created by interaction. It may have many aspects. You don't need to define your relationship by a label, nor do you have to live up to a label. You can, however, use a lable to describe an aspect of a relationship.

If your relationship is purely one thing... then it's not a healthy relationship. People are complex, and interaction between complex people is even more complex. So a relationship will have levels, multiple aspects and so on.

But... it's still just the one relationship. Unless you have multiple personality disorder, or you are in a poly situation... and that's a whole nother kettle of fish!

Just relax, be who you are, do what you want to do. And if the label fits, fine. But don't try to fit yourself to a label!

Kicks soapbox back into the corner.

Oh you put this so well. When I met Himself, I had some preconceived notions about how I thought we should be have... And He said virtually the same thing to me... We did not need to define our relationship in a certain manner because that is what I had read about or seen on the net. He let me know that He would make the rules for our relationship that would suit us and who we are.

Sometimes we are most formal... and sometimes we are not... But always He defines the context of our relationship.

I know that who we are together might not suit everyone... but it becomes the two of us....

 

[FungiUg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dual relationship...or too much confusion?

I know that who we are together might not suit everyone... but it becomes the two of us....

Applauds

Every relationship is different, because we are all different. Funny that.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dual relationship...or too much confusion?

Applauds

Every relationship is different, because we are all different. Funny that.

And fuck'em if they can't take a joke.

They're a joke because they don't fuck like us.

 

[Owlz]

My apologies, everyone.

Owlz

 

[AngelicAssassin]

My apologies, everyone.

Owlz

Wait a second stud ... back up.

We don't prosecute here. Well, we try not to anyway.

Just call it heavy handed guidance. Most of us don't roleplay ... it just comes natural and unfortunately direct.

Enjoy your discovery ... revel in it.

Jaded and scaled-eyed ain't half the fun as wide eyed and learning.

 

[niteshade]

Hi there. Just thought I would drop in with my two cents worth. First, I want to say way to go to FungiUg... you are so eloquent when you jump on that soap box... wonderful.
I am new to all of this as well, and what I am finding is that if I allow someone else's opinions, or labels, if you will, to define my relationship, I start running into problems.

When I keep in mind that we are in our OWN relationship, and that what he requires of me (and what I require of him) is different than someone else's dynamic, things tend to roll along fine.

So, to endorse the others... do what feels right to you. It may be awkward at first, and there may be some laughs, or tears, but ultimately it will be you, not someone else.

Best wishes,
Niteshade

 

[FungiUg]

My apologies, everyone.

Nothing to apologise for, Owlz. It's all a matter of learning.

 

[Owlz]

Nothing to apologise for, Owlz. It's all a matter of learning.

Thanks, FU. (I'm sure I'm not the first to address you thusly...it was 'just there,' begging to be used.)

Thanks also to those others of you hoo offered your comments about labels. As it is, my surrogate cyber-sub & I never use those three labels. We just do what feel right for us'...and have a ball in the process. I explain in an earlier post why I call littleone my 'cyber-sub.' No need to re-hash here.

I'm considering purchasing the book entitled 'Different Loving.' Has anyone read this book about BDSM?

Owlz

 

[Etoile]

I agree with the theory that if your relationship is with only one person, then it's not a dual relationship. It's extremely difficult - if not impossible - to play only B/D or only D/s with only one partner at any given time. They pretty much always meld. If you have more than one partner, they might separate (curdle?!), but in general they are just different parts of the same whole.

 

[Owlz]

I agree with the theory that if your relationship is with only one person, then it's not a dual relationship. It's extremely difficult - if not impossible - to play only B/D or only D/s with only one partner at any given time. They pretty much always meld. If you have more than one partner, they might separate (curdle?!), but in general they are just different parts of the same whole.

Thanks, Etoile. I always enjoy your posts, and I appreciate your educating me with this latest one.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Thanks, FU. (I'm sure I'm not the first to address you thusly...it was 'just there,' begging to be used.)

Thanks also to those others of you hoo offered your comments about labels. As it is, my surrogate cyber-sub & I never use those three labels. We just do what feel right for us'...and have a ball in the process. I explain in an earlier post why I call littleone my 'cyber-sub.' No need to re-hash here.

I'm considering purchasing the book entitled 'Different Loving.' Has anyone read this book about BDSM?

Owlz

It is My Favorite Book, mainly because it has talks in detail about femdom relationships (no surprise there).

My Number two Favorite book is SM 101.

 

[Owlz]

It is My Favorite Book, mainly because it has talks in detail about femdom relationships (no surprise there).

My Number two Favorite book is SM 101.

Does 'Different Loving' address male dom, too?

I'll have to look for that book and SM 101.

::::::::::::wonders to self if there is (or should be) a 'BDSM For Dummies' book, too.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Does 'Different Loving' address male dom, too?

I'll have to look for that book and SM 101.

::::::::::::wonders to self if there is (or should be) a 'BDSM For Dummies' book, too.

It does indeed discuss male doms. It talks about the different types of relationships that go from one end of the spectrum (play partners) to the other (24/7 slavery).

It also has interviews with real people who talk about how they manifest the lifestyle.

It is a good book.

Jay Wiseman's SM 101 is very good too. I have given away copies to novice subs whom I have trained. I can never keep a copy cause I always give it away.

 

[Etoile]

Thanks, Etoile. I always enjoy your posts, and I appreciate your educating me with this latest one.

Heh, thanks. I feel like I'm less noticeable lately, it's nice to know somebody hears me.

 

[Owlz]

Heh, thanks. I feel like I'm less noticeable lately, it's nice to know somebody hears me.

Your posts (especially, but not exclusively, in response to my posts) are among the first I look for.