Motivations

[NoJo]

I read somewhere once that humans have only three motivations: fear, reward and revenge.

I disagree. I think probably, fear, immortality and greed are more accurate. Fear and immortality cover a hell of a lot of ground.

I don't see love as a motivator in the big picture.

AA

Agree. But I think that what you said mainly applies to the male of the species.

 

[English Lady]

Wow. this is a subject and a half.

Now I guess I'll come at this from a different angle. I'm a Christian and really my prime motivator therefore should be love

(Above all love one another and all that ) And I can definitely say it isn't naturally what humans are motivated by. Yeah fear is probably it. Want after all is just the reaction to fearing the lack of something yes?

Anyhow if love drove us and not fear then there would be a lack of crime,I think the only crime that would be commited would be things done at the height of an argument with a loved one when that all consuming love turns towards hate instead.

You see love and hate are so close, someone wise once said to me that you can't hate someone if you've never loved them. So if the world was ruled by love then does it follow there would be more hate in the world?

So i'd like to think that we'd not have poverty or war or famine or any of that,we'd all share equally but we all will still be human and I am sure that the love motivating us to give to others could be blighted by some kind of percieved slight and war and famine and poverty would sneak back in again.

I'm looking at it from a human love kinda view. Perfect love. Real true Christian Love would make this world into Heaven and that would be a miracle indeed!

 

[impressive]

Thanks, everyone, for the great replies over night. I'm not to my "Ah ha!" (yet), but I'm enjoying the discussion muy mucho.

I guess, to answer cant's question of scope, I was thinking of "society" as a whole -- but only in terms of human relationships (i.e., still fearing the tiger) -- AND in terms of interpersonal relationships. Two separate discussions, certainly.

I like the "mutual erosion" bit. We all do that to an extent -- and then freeze when reaching our fear threshhold. Perhaps relationship problems arise when those fear threshholds are incompatible.

I think where I was going with the D/s thing was the creation of a haven (which vella touched upon) wherein it was "safe" to give oneself so completely. The fear is still there, at least initially, but submitting gives the psyche "permission" to let go of it. Thus, it would indeed be an avenue towards love without fear -- at least "in the moment."

Good discussion!

 

[gauchecritic]

To be contrary, I don't think fear is the driving force. Love is. Love in its widest sense. Loving your lifestyle, your comfort, your family, your spouse, your kids.

To protect that love must needs involve aggression towards loss of any part of it, not necessarily fearing the loss but being prepared to defend its loss.

Maybe I'm being nit-picky about definitions or something but as I see it (in that Maslow type way) the hierarchy would go life, food, warmth, shelter, love. There isn't actually any room for hate in there. Love being an abstract which stands atop a list of physical needs.

You may say that fear surrounds the entire edifice which simply means that it's not there as a requirement.

Fearing loss and requiring need are not two sides of the same coin. Needing, in my view, is primal, fear is what comes when you have the leisure to think.

 

[impressive]

Needing, in my view, is primal, fear is what comes when you have the leisure to think.

Interesting view, your contrariness.

I'm finding, via all these replies, that the lines between need-fear-love are extremely blurry.

 

[matriarch]

Interesting view, your contrariness.

I'm finding, via all these replies, that the lines between need-fear-love are extremely blurry.

Maybe because there are no lines ?? All of them are so inter-linked, feeding off each other ?? *shrug*

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Motivations

complete surrender for a sub (a sub being myself as i cant speak for everyone of them)
is the giving over of power...
ok, people might balk at this but its really to do with trust and faith. if i didnt love completly i wouldnt be able to trust thoroughly.

Yes, exactly.

Being completely open to another in that way, and submitting, totally and utterly, is liberating. For me, anyway. All control is given up, all power and decision making is given over to the other.

Of course this does often lead to physical pain (good), and can lead to emotional pain (not so good), but a risk worth taking, in my opinion. I am usually driven by love and need/want. Never fear. I fear very little.

Ok, buggering off again. This thread just grabbed me.

Lou

Edited to add this, because I didn't read down far enough...

I think where I was going with the D/s thing was the creation of a haven (which vella touched upon) wherein it was "safe" to give oneself so completely. The fear is still there, at least initially, but submitting gives the psyche "permission" to let go of it. Thus, it would indeed be an avenue towards love without fear -- at least "in the moment."

Yes, that is precisely it. Except, not even that initial fear is there for me. A little nervousness and trepidation, maybe, but not fear. That trust is so complete.

Thanks, Imp. Good thread.

 

[Guest]

To be contrary, I don't think fear is the driving force. Love is. Love in its widest sense. Loving your lifestyle, your comfort, your family, your spouse, your kids.

To protect that love must needs involve aggression towards loss of any part of it, not necessarily fearing the loss but being prepared to defend its loss.

Maybe I'm being nit-picky about definitions or something but as I see it (in that Maslow type way) the hierarchy would go life, food, warmth, shelter, love. There isn't actually any room for hate in there. Love being an abstract which stands atop a list of physical needs.

You may say that fear surrounds the entire edifice which simply means that it's not there as a requirement.

Fearing loss and requiring need are not two sides of the same coin. Needing, in my view, is primal, fear is what comes when you have the leisure to think.

Back again, and yeah, what Gauche said. All of it.

 

[mismused]

Gasp!

I don't think it possible to give oneself completely, totally, utterly 100% to another person, allowing them to know everything...every single thing about you....without, as a consequence, losing some of yourself. Maybe even ALL of yourself. 'You' as an endividual functioning entity, would cease to exist, because the other person, lets say the Dom/me for argument's sake, would be able to totally control your every movement, thought, feeling.

I don't see that as love.

Every human being has a need to retain something within them that is only for and about them. Call them secrets if you will, but there are things that 'I' know, like, do, think, feel, that I personally hold in my heart, my soul, and would never reveal to anyone. The giving away of those 'inner secrets', would in my view, leave me so vulnerable, so open, that pain would inevitably be the only outcome.

But, on the other hand, to find a person, another soul, with whom you were in any way tempted to share such totality, such completeness...isn't that what, in the end, we all strive for, spend all our time seeking? Our soulmate?? The person to whom we would be willing to hand it all, share it all. 'Share', not 'control'.

That I see as love.

Mat's view.

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

I'm about to go against you. Surely I will die now!

Okay, okay, sorry for the theatrics, but I disagree with you, and agree with Vella's complete giving, although for different reasons, though hers is very, very valid (it's a strange and beautiulf world a subbie can have).

One, I think, can have, and actually seeks on the highest, and deepest inner levels, to be one with another, but in a peculiar way.

Ooops! Getting to be too much here. Suffice with what I've said, but that's just MHO.

mismused (Peace offering )

 

[mismused]

I read somewhere once that humans have only three motivations: fear, reward and revenge.

I disagree. I think probably, fear, immortality and greed are more accurate. Fear and immortality cover a hell of a lot of ground.

I don't see love as a motivator in the big picture.

AA

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

I must have a hangover (and, darn it, I haven't had a drop in ages).

Love is the prime motivator, the mother of all pleasure seeking, and possibly of life itself.

(Now I know I should have a drink before getting a hangover. I'm having a strange morning already. )

 

[impressive]

Re: Gasp!

Okay, okay, sorry for the theatrics, but I disagree with you, and agree with Vella's complete giving, although for different reasons, though hers is very, very valid (it's a strange and beautiulf world a subbie can have).

I'm circling this -- like a stalking cat. It's not the elusive "Ah ha!" -- but I feel strongly it's related. Kind of like the hot/cold game. I'm getting warmer.

Personally, I don't feel the sexual need for such pain/humiliation-related surrender in order to give myself completely -- or perhaps it's that a person I truly loved would not expect/require it. If s/he did, I doubt I'd love/desire that person.

But who is truly "requiring" what? Is it the sub that requires a Domme in order to truly give -- or the Domme that requires a sub? Or are they each proving something -- both to themselves and the other? Superficially, it would appear that each is proving something to the other. Looking deeper, it becomes apparent that that "something" is not really as related to control/power as the casual observer would surmise.

Now I'm off on a tangent and getting colder. Still fascinating, though.

 

[mismused]

Re: Re: Gasp!

I'm circling this -- like a stalking cat. It's not the elusive "Ah ha!" -- but I feel strongly it's related. Kind of like the hot/cold game. I'm getting warmer.

Personally, I don't feel the sexual need for such pain/humiliation-related surrender in order to give myself completely -- or perhaps it's that a person I truly loved would not expect/require it. If s/he did, I doubt I'd love/desire that person.

But who is truly "requiring" what? Is it the sub that requires a Domme in order to truly give -- or the Domme that requires a sub? Or are they each proving something -- both to themselves and the other? Superficially, it would appear that each is proving something to the other. Looking deeper, it becomes apparent that that "something" is not really as related to control/power as the casual observer would surmise.

Now I'm off on a tangent and getting colder. Still fascinating, though.

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

In my wildest, loose opinion, the true sub has the best angle on love in the phenomenal world as we generally live in it.

As I understand the dynamics, in their best sense of being that is, they mutually fulfill each other, but it is the sub that truly weilds the power through the submissive nature. In a very real sense, the perfect D/s is really the ultimate reaching of love's being, of love itself, and it is the sub who leads in this. Vella can probably say it much better than I do, and more authoritatively, if she even agrees with me. (*Shrug!*)

For my personal self, I don't agree with that last bit, feeling that we have an inherent urge to merge, and I'm not talking in a business sense.

That urge to merge is akin to conscious mind springing forth of necessity from mind itself.

Have I made myself perfectly confusable now? Good!

mismused

 

[Guest]

Imp said:...
Personally, I don't feel the sexual need for such pain/humiliation-related surrender in order to give myself completely -- or perhaps it's that a person I truly loved would not expect/require it. If s/he did, I doubt I'd love/desire that person.

It is a common mispreception that humiliation is always rolled into the Dom/sub relationship. Infact, that aspect of our relationship is not an aspect at all. She knows me and how self doubting i am/can be and i trust her to never humiliate me. That would be the death knell of our relationship. sorry for the tangent but it does irk me that people think humiliation is a part of all or most D/s relationships.
Pain: yes, i do enjoy pain but its the physical kind and not the mental that i find fascinating. it took a long time to understand the level and types of pain that enthrall me. I think, though, that i am, yet again, off on a tangent.

But who is truly "requiring" what? Is it the sub that requires a Domme in order to truly give -- or the Domme that requires a sub? Or are they each proving something -- both to themselves and the other? Superficially, it would appear that each is proving something to the other. Looking deeper, it becomes apparent that that "something" is not really as related to control/power as the casual observer would surmise...

Isnt it true in all relationships, be they D/s or vanilla? we are co-dependant on one another. Give and take is, in my opinion, the very foundation of a lasting relationship no matter the outer shell its covered in.
That being said, i don't know that i could love any other way than i do right at this point in my life. Loving honestly, trusting thoroughly and being true to ones own self...anything else just doesn't equate for me.
Look, you can disect it any way you want but what i believe is this: we all have an innate urge to be loved. balk if you will. Who we fall for and the manner we fall are all just wayside matters. For me, giving is the crux... however, i receive just as much as i give. i am met action for action.

ok.. im done. wow... that was a bit too serious for me.

 

[impressive]

Look, you can disect it any way you want but what i believe is this: we all have an innate urge to be loved. balk if you will. Who we fall for and the manner we fall are all just wayside matters. For me, giving is the crux... however, i receive just as much as i give. i am met action for action.

ok.. im done. wow... that was a bit too serious for me.

Agree, love. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers. Seeking understanding here -- not casting stones. (Love, not fear.)

 

[Guest]

Agree, love. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers. Seeking understanding here -- not casting stones. (Love, not fear.)

i know sweetie... i didnt take it that way and i apologise if my tone came across as such..
make love
not war!
*snicker*
i suppose i should just stick to sarcasm. i know that i do it well.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Do you ever wonder what the world would be like if what primarily drove our actions was love instead of fear?

It's not?

I think for me it is. I can tell you roughly where you will end - not a lot of financial stabilty, a great deal in the way of debts, and an enormous amount of fun.

One of the fine points of my life came at a time when in pursuit of the love - in this case of a literary and intellectual goal - the money situation had gotten very bad - I was seven thousand dollars in the hole with a credit card company and could see no way out. In a fit of despair, I told my parents the situation I was in - and I should point out that I was nearly twenty-four then and felt that I really should have been well beyond being bailed out by my parents. They were amazing. Money was supplied. Lectures, which I expected and accepted as thoroughly my due, were not. Instead, my father - the conservative, fiscally prudent one, the one I expected to rip me to shreds for my lack of discipline and planning - only wrote me a letter which included:

1) A comment that when one looks back upon the great minds of the world, those who have really accomplished wonderful things, one never really hears, as the highest praise, "And he paid every bill on time."

2) A poem about taking me trick-or-treating when I was five. The only poem I have ever heard of him writing, and one more than I would ever have expected.

That has a way of changing one's perspective.

Shanglan

 

[oggbashan]

Self-defence

The start of this thread reminded me of the discussions in the early 1930s about whether one should fight for one's country.

The problem with assuming that love and peace will solve everything is that there is evil in the world and evil people who will take advantage of the weak.

If love worked on its own we wouldn't need police forces, or defence forces. However in the world as it is, not as we might want it to be, urban peace and international peace is only guaranteed by implicit force. Even the neutral Swiss have a large defence budget and an armed citizen militia. Their neutrality is an armed neutrality.

Who stops every potential local thug from stealing your goods, or the neighbourhood deviants from raping? - The threat of detection and punishment. It doesn't work for all of them but imagine what the world would be like if anyone could take what they wanted or abuse whoever they liked with no consequences?

In a democracy, police and armed forces act on behalf of the majority to ensure that laws are obeyed and that international disputes are not settled by war whenever possible. The strong protect the weak from exploitation. It doesn't always work because no human institutions are perfect. It works for most of us most of the time.

Peaceful co-existence between criminals and victims is not possible with love alone. If it were possible, we wouldn't be human.

Og

 

[impressive]

Re: Self-defence

Peaceful co-existence between criminals and victims is not possible with love alone. If it were possible, we wouldn't be human.

Og

In that case, I'm ready to evolve.

Thanks, Og.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Imp: I'm still working on your initial question. Interesting indeed.

I don't think it possible to give oneself completely, totally, utterly 100% to another person, allowing them to know everything...every single thing about you....without, as a consequence, losing some of yourself.

Humor me for a moment, please. What if, when you've opened every door to who you are, shown all of your skeletons right down to their shadows to another person, you do lose some of yourself? What if that's the part of yourself that is holding you back from true individual freedom? What if the part you lose is somehow the right way to make room for a connection on a level you never imagined existed? Just what if...?

'You' as an endividual functioning entity, would cease to exist, because the other person, lets say the Dom/me for argument's sake, would be able to totally control your every movement, thought, feeling.

Perhaps this is a better way of looking at that thought: 'You' as an individual functioning entity would be elevated to an existence you are incapable of reaching on your own. By trusting someone else enough to release that control to them, you find the key that unlocks the chains binding your deepest emotions, therein finding peace, happiness, joy, pleasure, love (whichever it is for each individual) the likes of which cannot be found otherwise?

Every human being has a need to retain something within them that is only for and about them.

I don't think this is accurate. It's not for me anyway.

The giving away of those 'inner secrets', would in my view, leave me so vulnerable, so open, that pain would inevitably be the only outcome.

I needed to expose my weaknesses in order for them to lose their power. I needed to open myself to that vulnerability to see it for what it is (mostly a set of paradigms I've developed.) I find as I move through this process that the paradigms I've believed in for so long are mostly falsehoods, i.e. powerless over me now. Opening yourself to hurt is what makes finding love so damn good. If it weren't such a big risk, it wouldn't be such a great payoff. (You did mention this in the last para. )

The person to whom we would be willing to hand it all, share it all. 'Share', not 'control'.

I see this: 'share' not 'control' as a matter of semantics. Control gets a bad rap, I think. Some are completed by giving up control, while others are completed by gaining it. Tit for tat, if you will. To illustrate: Wielding control that you have received by default is hardly as satisfying as wielding control that was given to you out of sheer trust and want.

That I see as love.

Mat's view.

It's good to know what works for you.

~lucky

 

[matriarch]

Humor me for a moment, please. What if, when you've opened every door to who you are, shown all of your skeletons right down to their shadows to another person, you do lose some of yourself? What if that's the part of yourself that is holding you back from true individual freedom? What if the part you lose is somehow the right way to make room for a connection on a level you never imagined existed? Just what if...?



Perhaps this is a better way of looking at that thought: 'You' as an individual functioning entity would be elevated to an existence you are incapable of reaching on your own. By trusting someone else enough to release that control to them, you find the key that unlocks the chains binding your deepest emotions, therein finding peace, happiness, joy, pleasure, love (whichever it is for each individual) the likes of which cannot be found otherwise?



I don't think this is accurate. It's not for me anyway.



I needed to expose my weaknesses in order for them to lose their power. I needed to open myself to that vulnerability to see it for what it is (mostly a set of paradigms I've developed.) I find as I move through this process that the paradigms I've believed in for so long are mostly falsehoods, i.e. powerless over me now. Opening yourself to hurt is what makes finding love so damn good. If it weren't such a big risk, it wouldn't be such a great payoff. (You did mention this in the last para. )



I see this: 'share' not 'control' as a matter of semantics. Control gets a bad rap, I think. Some are completed by giving up control, while others are completed by gaining it. Tit for tat, if you will. To illustrate: Wielding control that you have received by default is hardly as satisfying as wielding control that was given to you out of sheer trust and want.



It's good to know what works for you.

~lucky

I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying. That 'way' is obviously the right one for you.

I'm going to assume for now, that your character and psyche are different mine, maybe merely because of circumstances.

Maybe one day, if I find that elusive soul that would make me want to open up to and face my weaknesses and fears, want to give up everything, share everything - that one person from whom I would not dream of hiding anything, my theories (and they are only theories) would radically change. Until then, I can only go by my experiences, the way my life has been lived, the relationships I have shared.

A part of me really hopes that this would be so. As I said, isn't that what we are all really seeking. The one person that will so match us that we will feel complete in every sense.

Until then.............parts of me will forever main locked inside me.

And, dear girl, its nice to hear what works for you. But I think I'd already realised it.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Re: Re: Gasp!

But who is truly "requiring" what? Is it the sub that requires a Domme in order to truly give -- or the Domme that requires a sub? Or are they each proving something -- both to themselves and the other? Superficially, it would appear that each is proving something to the other. Looking deeper, it becomes apparent that that "something" is not really as related to control/power as the casual observer would surmise.

I think it explains itself better if you swap the word proving with providing.

It is much more mutual than most people think. A Dominant requires the submission of a submissive to fulfill their need for complete trustworthiness/power/control. A submissive requires a level of trust in the Dominant that allows them to fulfill their need to submit (let-go). At any rate, the give/take is cyclical and whenever one piece is missing it tends to fall apart or be completely ineffective. Same as honesty in a vanilla relationship. Trust/honesty are essential in any union, just taken to a different (more extreme) level in some relationships.

Things tend to get confusing whenever motivators such as love are incorporated in the telling, but they are often linked and play a large role.

~lucky

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying. That 'way' is obviously the right one for you.

I'm going to assume for now, that your character and psyche are different mine, maybe merely because of circumstances.

Maybe one day, if I find that elusive soul that would make me want to open up to and face my weaknesses and fears, want to give up everything, share everything - that one person from whom I would not dream of hiding anything, my theories (and they are only theories) would radically change. Until then, I can only go by my experiences, the way my life has been lived, the relationships I have shared.

A part of me really hopes that this would be so. As I said, isn't that what we are all really seeking. The one person that will so match us that we will feel complete in every sense.

Until then.............parts of me will forever main locked inside me.

And, dear girl, its nice to hear what works for you. But I think I'd already realised it.

I simply wanted to pose another angle. Different experiences will lend to different views. Perhaps I read tone into your theories. Regardless, how one feels is just that and can't be argued. Just wanted to show a different side. The D/s aspect is largely misunderstood by many and I felt in the mood to share my understanding of it.

Here's to hoping you find happiness, no matter the 'way'.

~lucky

 

[impressive]

Re: Re: Re: Gasp!

I think it explains itself better if you swap the word proving with providing.

Very good point.

Thank you so much for sharing!

 

[cloudy]

Wow, this has gotten deep.

Some of you know this about me, Mat does, but I feel that sometimes that elusive soulmate we all look for is not really what we need, or is necessarily good for us at the time.

I found such a person once. We were completely open and honest with each other and shared everything. Each of us said the same thing when we met....like there was a "click" as if a piece that had been missing had fallen into place. Both of us went through some really hard times, and each of us was there for the other. But, and here's the kicker, in a way, we almost became too close. I felt his pain, he felt mine, but it was more than that. It was almost as if the individuals we were became lost in the "we" and although I will love this person until the day I die, and he loves me, it just isn't good for either one of us to be together, not this trip around, anyway....maybe in another life.

I think if we had tried to be together anyway, the individuals we are would have eventually been destroyed, or we would have destroyed each other....too much pain within us both.

That probably makes no sense whatsoever unless you know the back story, but there it is.

 

[mismused]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gasp!

Very good point.

Thank you so much for sharing!

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

Okay, talk about sharing, and putting things out there, here's one.

I read a lot, and what my A/V portion of my posts says is very much me. In that regard, and in line with a lot that has been said here, I want to recommend one of the best books I have ever read on psychology. The best because it isn't full of psycho jargon, yet is so simple, and so easy to follow. It suddenly strikes you that this isn't a prurient book at all, not a peek into a strange world, but all of our worlds, save the rare few.

I've recommended it to some, but have no idea if it's been acted on for sure. Here tis:

"Arousal -- The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies," by Dr. Michael J. Bader, Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin Press, ISBN: 0-312-26933-1.

If you're really serious about wanting to know more about this, and much more, here's your chance. No, it isn't a D/s book, but about how it is we fantasize, and why.

Enough said, save to say that it's fabulous.

mismused to all who seek.