The Slippery Slope

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[ecstaticsub]

Interesting, since I am in both a vanilla marriage and a D/S relationship...

First off I don't think most none-BDSM relationships are truly 50-50. In my case I would guess it is closer to 55-45. I do agree that as the relationship starts to shift more and more away form being 50-50 discord starts to happen (for us personally)

Now as far as D/s relationship either becoming M/s or falling apart..let's just say I hope not. My D/s relationship could never be M/s. I, though I hate to admit it, I do see where the inability to shift more toward M/s as the relationship matured may damage and perhaps even eventually destroy the relationship. I would prefer to keep things just as they are.

 

[sexy_curves]

I disagree with that theory, mainly because of the last paragraph. In most, healthy dom/sub relationships, the dom is in it to both please the sub, and please him or herself, just as the sub finds pleasure in doing what he or she does. While I haven't been in any heavy long term dom/sub relationships yet, I don't believe that there has to be a power change, more than in the beginning of the relationship if it is checked every so often. thats just my opinion, agree with it or not.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[Kajira Callista]

I did the famous backspacex100000. Will be back... with prolly too much to say.

 

[BiBunny]

In my rather limited experience, I think it depends on what both the Dom/me and the sub hold most dear--the power exchange or the need for one another's company. Also, if, say, the Dom/me needs the power exchange most, and the sub needs the Dom/me as a person most, there are going to be issues.

Most relationships will fall apart eventually, no matter what. It's unusual for any relationship to last until one of the partners dies, and D/s relationships are no exception. I'd say the loss of the dynamic is a symptom of the problem, rather than the cause.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[intothewoods]

Hmmm. Interesting theory. I'm not sure. I know married D/s folks who are not "24/7." They seem strong to me, and I don't see them falling apart. I guess I'll have to get back to you on that.

As for me, I don't know. I think I like a certain imbalance in power. A more intense, and D/s version, of a "vanilla" relationship. I can see that after a while, it might make sense to move to a more intense relationship. Maybe.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[intothewoods]

That begs the question "define 24/7." LOL

Heh heh. Well, they live together 24/7, lol, and I would say it's more than just a bedroom dynamic. I think it's what on the JMohegan scale was described as outside the bedroom D/s reenforces the bedroom dynamic.

I don't know - I also know a lot of couples who are married and in the scene, but don't particularly play together anymore.

With any long term relationship, you have to keep evolving together, or you evolve separately. So it makes sense that many D/s relationships would become M/s.

For me, I think it depends on how you define M/s. I can see giving up more power in a number of areas, but not all decision making power over, say, finances, etc. I guess, for me, I think I'll probably want more kids with my next partner, and I think my own personal preference is the parents as a team model, not the Daddy as king of castle model. Not that the latter can't be perfectly fine (I truly think it can), but it's not what I'm looking for.

So, I think as long as there are kids in the house, there are limitations to the D/s.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I had margaritas with a (no chemistry but we like each other's minds) friend last night, and in the process of discussing D/s he proposed his theory that all dominant/submissive relationships eventually fall into two catagories - they either drift towards and eventually become full blown Master/slave, or the relationship falls apart.

His argument was that in a "normal" relationship, equality reigns and things are essentially 50/50. Due to that fact, if things drift a bit, say become 55/45 or 60/40, it's quite noticeable, and someone is likely to speak up rather quickly to re-establish the balance.

In a Dominant/submissive relationship, both parties agree upon an imbalance of power from the outset (60/40, 80/20, whatever)... the balance is skewed to begin with, which makes it more difficult to see if things are starting to tilt more sharply one way or the other, or for the subject to be broached early on in the "sliding" process. When the power shifts a bit further, is it over a small enough thing it's not worth speaking up about? Or is it a biggie? Or does it take several small things before the shift is really noticed?

He was telling me that everyone he's ever known that succeeded in a multi-year positive BDSM relationship, eventually became full blown Master/slave. Even those who reassessed things and re-wrote contracts each year, found themselves in a situation where more and more power was acquiesced... or the shift bred resentment, and things fell apart.

The shift isn't necessarily a disregard for limits/etc, it becomes an issue of the submissive's personality/nature wishing to please (as his/her expression of self and ego) versus the Dominant's personality/nature of wishing to be pleased (his expression of self/ego), and the two growing more and more comfortable with one another. Eventually the two personalities/natures either collide or meld into one another, at which point the couple breaks up, or the dynamic shifts into full blown Master/slave relationship.

Thoughts?

uh... what was the middle part again?

 

[twysted73]

Vanilla or D/s...

To grossly simplify things, one is quite simply a magnified version of the other. Both have similiar dynamics of give and take, top and bottom, devotion to one another and to self-interest. Ask any couple over 50 and it's not hard to see who runs things and who just wants to be left alone to watch tv.

Your friend's version sounds rather black and white. And if there was ever a thing that defies a black and white difinition it's human interraction. Too many variables and influences.
I understand it's within our natures to want more to feel more. Even our biologies have this effect in regards to medication. And the eventual need to "go extreme" to break the manotony is always there. But just like our personalities can't handle 2nd gear forever, too much of 5th bores us as well.
We are as simple in our needs as we are complicated. And something that chaotic could "hardly ever" be pigeon-holed into a dozen categories let alone two.

 

[myinnerslut]

id have to agree. there is no relationship D/s or otherwise that stays the same. something has to change. its impossible for a succesful relationship to remain the same. you have to change, and whether that change brings you to 60/40, 90/10, or has you drift apart, its only natural.

 

[JMohegan]

I knew a Physics major in college who was incredibly smart, with bushy hair and a genuinely likable demeanor. With sincere regard, we used to call him "Al".

One day he asked if I would review a paper of his before he turned it in. The subject: the physics of hitting a baseball, and how MLB players could improve their game.

I read it, brought it back to him, and said, "Damn, Al. You've never played baseball. Never even stepped up to the plate."

He responded, "Well... no. But I've read everything I can find on the subject, and watch it every chance I get!"

Thoughts?

I don't think your friend has ever played baseball.

Never even stepped up to the plate.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[graceanne]

Um, k and I's relationship has always been D/s, even before we knew the term, and we've been married 10 years, together 11. Our relationship has never been anywhere near M/s. For one thing, I have most of the control when it comes to our kids, because I'm with them every day and I have the most child rearing experience. And I'm better with kids, period.

Relationships have existed for centuries that were D/s. I personally think that no relationship is totally 50/50, that the power shifts from situation to situations.

 

[Blushing Bottom]

We don't use the word "dynamic" to describe WIITWD for nothing. In the absence of time I'll have more to say later on this most interesting topic. Oh and Cutie thank-you for posting it.

 

[GentleSub_Ivy]

If I was in a cynical mood (and I am usually), I would say that he is hemming an hawing around saying that he really wants an M/s relationship and was trying to see if you would be remotely open to that.

In a less cynical mood, I do understand his point, but I think that it is a generalization. It would only be natural for some D/s relationships to move into the M/s sphere. The people involved build on their trust of each other through the years and decide that they want to push the envelope further. However, as others have said the relationship would have to be on solid ground for it to work long-term.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[Recidiva]

Interesting theory that may apply to a few people, I think. But overall I'd say it misses a large amount of nuance.

Saying you can't balance a power situation in one of the middle ranges is a bit like saying you can't tell when a dish has too much salt or too little salt. Everyone has their own range of where they're comfortable. You're just as likely to split up, say, as things slide more toward M/s as you are when it stays the same and your tastes change.

This isn't quite a controlled situation or group. As those who slide back out of D/s and then become more "vanilla" can still be a successful relationship, but disqualifies them from D/s.

As a theory it has limited applications, and doesn't really include the whole group. It mostly redefines "successful D/s" to exclude others who went another way.

In short I believe this measures a race as only those who reach an endpoint in theory. It doesn't describe the journey, only those that reach defined endpoints with no further negotiation. "Broken up" or "M/s"

 

[catalina_francisco]

I knew a Physics major in college who was incredibly smart, with bushy hair and a genuinely likable demeanor. With sincere regard, we used to call him "Al".

One day he asked if I would review a paper of his before he turned it in. The subject: the physics of hitting a baseball, and how MLB players could improve their game.

I read it, brought it back to him, and said, "Damn, Al. You've never played baseball. Never even stepped up to the plate."

He responded, "Well... no. But I've read everything I can find on the subject, and watch it every chance I get!"



I don't think your friend has ever played baseball.

Never even stepped up to the plate.

LOL, you saved me from saying pretty much the same, though I was going to say more that people spend far too much time on trying to intellectualise and analyse D/s than getting off their butts and actually doing. You can read and discuss as much as you like, on any topic actually, but until you live what is being read about and discussed, you only have a disassociated view of the topic in question, not the reality. When I was studying at Uni, it was amazing the number of people who could use big words, quote all the correct intellectual terminology and theory, top every exam and assignment, then when they were actually put in a position to apply it all in professional real life, they failed miserably and didn't even have a clue where to start or what was going on. They could talk about it 'til they were blue in the face, but feel it and know it they couldn't.

Catalina

 

[GentleSub_Ivy]

There isn't any element of relationship hemming and hawing, because we've agreed there's no chemistry/seeing if I could be persuaded to be open to XYZ. We had great conversations, and agreed there wasn't any chemistry, so now we get together for coffee/drinks to discuss everything from sociology and population control to the psychology of BDSM. lol

Just a perspective I thought might make an interesting discussion.

It's always good to have a friend like that actually.

 

[intothewoods]

LOL, you saved me from saying pretty much the same, though I was going to say more that people spend far too much time on trying to intellectualise and analyse D/s than getting off their butts and actually doing. You can read and discuss as much as you like, on any topic actually, but until you live what is being read about and discussed, you only have a disassociated view of the topic in question, not the reality. When I was studying at Uni, it was amazing the number of people who could use big words, quote all the correct intellectual terminology and theory, top every exam and assignment, then when they were actually put in a position to apply it all in professional real life, they failed miserably and didn't even have a clue where to start or what was going on. They could talk about it 'til they were blue in the face, but feel it and know it they couldn't.

Catalina

Lol, there is definitely some truth there. On the other hand, I think I'm quite afraid to get "lost" in a relationship, and not think it through first. I feel like I don't always make the best decisions, so I'm terrified of leaping without looking. It's all about balance I guess. Ya gotta get out there and live, but it's also good to sit around and philosophize sometimes.

 

[ownedsubgal]

So, I think as long as there are kids in the house, there are limitations to the D/s.

actually this is only true if you wish it to be so. for the entire course of our M/s relationship, we have had a child (my Master's son) in the home nearly 24/7, and it has not limited the dynamic in anyway. it's all about the particular values you wish to instill in a child, as well as how positively you view the D/s or M/s dynamic. obviously we view our loving Master/slave union as healthy and good, therefore see nothing wrong with (responsibly) exposing a child to it. we do operate under the "Daddy is King of the Castle" model, and in no way shape or form does his son view me as an authority or disciplinary figure. he understands that i'm here to serve his father, that his father exercises a great deal of control over me, that i am disciplined and punished, etc. so for him such a household and relationship is normal and comfortable. the funny thing is it's clear even now that he'll more than likely grow up to seek out and enjoy a solidly "vanilla" relationship of his own...kids will grow up to be what they will be regardless.

as for the OP, i believe most successful long-term relationships are D/s to some degree, even those who many of us would define as vanilla. as for the idea that D/s dynamics either fall apart or evolve into M/s, i strongly disagree with this as well. most M/s dynamics were always M/s, as that's what those involved needed and sought out...i believe it's a minority of M/s unions that originally began as D/s.

 

[Quint]

.............