Valued traits in the life.

After reading some of the threads I want to talk about what people value in their relationships in the life.

I personally approach this life and look at it like I would look at it like a vinilla relationship.

You need to love the one you are with. Without love there really is no base for you to be able to build a relationship on. There needs to be trust, both sides need to trust eachother. And there needs to be loyalty.

From what I can see most of the activities, tasks and in one way or another test these factors, on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightstriker

You need to love the one you are with. Without love there really is no base for you to be able to build a relationship on. There needs to be trust, both sides need to trust eachother. And there needs to be loyalty.

---

Communication is key. When you've got a little bit of wisdom in your life about getting past yourself and treating others well, pretty much any hurdle can be overcome, as long as you both can talk about it.

Humor is important. If I can't laugh at the horror of it all with you, then we're not meant to survive together.

Love, trust, communication, humour, honesty and respect.

If I didn't respect my Dom, and he likewise, it wouldn't have survived the two years it has.

My Dom is the only person (apart from one or two family members) that I trust with my life.

We have to communicate, more so than r/l perhaps because it's online / long distance.

We have to be honest with each other. If we're not honest, like in any relationship, problems crop up. Telling each other how we feel, think and react to things, is a major part of this for us.

And you gotta have a laugh. lol.

All this, to me, should be expected in any relationship, kinky or vanilla.

I'm writing an article right now called "The Seven Essential Elements for Any Successful Relationship." In it, I list the following as absolute essentials:

Trust
Communication
Understanding
Compassion
Honesty
Respect
Commitment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightstriker

Without love there really is no base for you to be able to build a relationship on. There needs to be trust, both sides need to trust eachother. And there needs to be loyalty.

From what I can see most of the activities, tasks and in one way or another test these factors, on both sides.

---

Agreed, Nightstriker, and it is exactly this that confuses me whenever I hear of some of the tasks given in Submissive Tasks. I have very little knowledge of this because I am not a member of that part of the forums and I would be very happy to be enlightened, but I just can't get my head round how trust, loyalty and particularly love, can be involved when tasks are seemingly given out at random.

For my part I know that I couldn't do half the things I do with lucy unless I trusted, respected and, above all, loved her. But then I suppose that is the difference between having a BDSM relationship and just playing at Ds by giving/receiving tasks when both parties know virtually nothing about each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wontworry

But then I suppose that is the difference between having a BDSM relationship and just playing at Ds by giving/receiving tasks when both parties know virtually nothing about each other.

---

I've always wanted to ask but never had the guts for fear of everyone's wrath coming down on me, is how can one have a D/s relationship online with two people that hardly know each other. I had a very serious relationship and fucked up because I was so good at misinterpreting everything. Maybe seriousness was the problem, it mattered when I fucked up.

Oh well, I've come to the conclusion I'm crap at relationships, the harder I try the more I fuck up and the less I try the more successful I seem. If I haven't fathomed relationships at my age, it's not going to happen. I know all the theory, it's the fucking practice that is beyond me! :dunno:

I need a little Leonard Cohen for cathartic reasons. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProjectEuropa

I've always wanted to ask but never had the guts for fear of everyone's wrath coming down on me

---

*Stands shoulder to shoulder with PE, awaiting the onslaught.*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProjectEuropa

I've always wanted to ask but never had the guts for fear of everyone's wrath coming down on me, is how can one have a D/s relationship online with two people that hardly know each other. I had a very serious relationship and fucked up because I was so good at misinterpreting everything. Maybe seriousness was the problem, it mattered when I fucked up.

Oh well, I've come to the conclusion I'm crap at relationships, the harder I try the more I fuck up and the less I try the more successful I seem. If I haven't fathomed relationships at my age, it's not going to happen. I know all the theory, it's the fucking practice that is beyond me! :dunno:

I need a little Leonard Cohen for cathartic reasons. :o

---

Um..i'm confused...what WAS the question then?!?! LOL You said, i think "How can one have a Ds relationship with two people who hardly know each other?"...., this is a little ambigious (to say the least!)...do you mean how can one person have a relationship with two people? Or did you mean how can people have a relationship online? Or did you mean how can two people have a relationship online with someone they don't know? If the latter - 'tis easy, you get to know 'em! You couldn't possibly have any sort of relationship otherwise.

sl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slavelucy

Um..i'm confused...what WAS the question then?!?! LOL
sl

---

See! What more proof do you need! I'm useless. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProjectEuropa

See! What more proof do you need! I'm useless. :(

---

ROFL!

Awww, seriously tho, was there a question, or was it a continuation of WW's point about ST? If the latter i probably share reservations about how love/commitment/trust fit into a more...random set up. If it was about online relationships in general (between two specific people)...well, that's broader and is probably about taking time to get to know someone...can you ever KNOW someone for sure? No, probably not...but then again, you can't in real life either if they really didn't want you to.

Btw - don't be so hard on yourself Re: relationships, no one's perfect. :)

sl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDSM_Tourguide

Understanding
Honesty
Respect

---

And lest we forget the byproduct of these three things:

Humility!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slavelucy

ROFL!

Awww, seriously tho, was there a question, or was it a continuation of WW's point about ST? If the latter i probably share reservations about how love/commitment/trust fit into a more...random set up. If it was about online relationships in general (between two specific people)...well, that's broader and is probably about taking time to get to know someone...can you ever KNOW someone for sure? No, probably not...but then again, you can't in real life either if they really didn't want you to.



sl

---

It was actually about submissive tasks. I tried it once and couldn't get the hang of it and that was with someone I was very serious about. That was why I can't get my head round people who don't know eachother being able to do it. But then I thought it might be easier between two people who don't have commitment and strong feelings for eachother.

I am genuinely intrigued by it. I would like to be enlightened before I write it off.

I feel more comfortable where there seems to be some r/l relevance to what I'm asking a sub to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slavelucy

Btw - don't be so hard on yourself Re: relationships, no one's perfect. :) sl

---

Hmm. I have managed by trying to do the right thing to have three females telling me to take a hike! Four if I count my sister but I don't care about her. Her not talking to me is a plus! OK I did the wrong thing first. :o

If anyone wants to know how to piss females off just PM me.

That being said. I now have a good relationship with two females who know I carry a flag for a third female! What is that about? :dunno:

Either the world is mad or I am. Hmm Don't answer that.

But seriously. I am waiting to be enlightened on a few things. I am both baffled and intrigued, which I guess is why I have been hanging out here. However I do find myself enjoying everyone here so I suppose that has become the main reason why I participate.

I'm not sure how ST came into question in this thread. I thought this thread was about "valued traits in the life."

If we're talking about a relationship POV, then leave ST out of it. ST is not a personals or a relationship site. The people there are not there to find lasting friendships, love, or LTRs. The people there are mostly beginners in BDSM, without the benefit of a partner, looking to expand their knowledge of BDSM by performing tasks.

Ah, thanks for the insight.

Obviously the level of task in ST is fairly minor then (i.e. not requiring an excessive amount of knowledge of the subject or understanding of the submissive) because no relationships are formed and it consists mostly of beginners. I didnt understand that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProjectEuropa

It was actually about submissive tasks. I tried it once and couldn't get the hang of it and that was with someone I was very serious about. That was why I can't get my head round people who don't know eachother being able to do it.

---

Ah, right, yes, i see what you mean (i think!). If you mean online generally, then i can easily see how people do it..by getting to know each other, in that respect it's no different from getting to know someone in r/l...one would hardly be likely to shack up with someone they'd just met; and so, too, i find it unusual that someone would choose to take tasks from a dominant they'd just met.

i am not attempting to directly criticise the ST project here when i say this, but it really IS a mystery to me. In my view (and this is only my opinion), the DS relationship is COMPRISED of tasks...tasks given and performed with feeling and belief in a person, and if we all agree (which thus far, we seem to) that DS relationships are based on trust, love, understanding, commitment etc etc...then it seems a misnomer to say that what is going on in ST is DS at all.

(TG - with luck, the last paragraph hopefully clears up how ST came into a discussion about DS and it's associated values :) ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProjectEuropa

I feel more comfortable where there seems to be some r/l relevance to what I'm asking a sub to do.

---

How do you mean? Real life relevance for you or for her? If you'd formed some sort of bond (not necessarily overly emotional) with her...any tasks she performed at your request would certainly effect her r/l..and hopefully yours too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProjectEuropa

I am both baffled and intrigued.

---

About DS? About relationships? Aren't we all! LOL. i think DS particularly is open to a great deal of interpretation and gives rise to many different opinions and views...which is good. :)

sl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProjectEuropa

I had a very serious relationship and fucked up because I was so good at misinterpreting everything. Maybe seriousness was the problem, it mattered when I fucked up.

Oh well, I've come to the conclusion I'm crap at relationships, the harder I try the more I fuck up and the less I try the more successful I seem. If I haven't fathomed relationships at my age, it's not going to happen. I know all the theory, it's the fucking practice that is beyond me! :dunno:

I need a little Leonard Cohen for cathartic reasons. :o

---

PE its only too late at the RIP stage. Try learning the art of feeling a relaxed failure in this department. [self acceptance]
Lighten up, in the knowledge that some matters are too important to take seriously ( like relationships and parenting). [ apply this to oneself]
and
Remember R D Laings statement on personal development

THE RANGE OF WHAT WE THINK AND DO IS LIMITED BY WHAT WE FAIL TO NOTICE;

AND BECAUSE WE FAIL TO NOTICE,THAT WE FAIL TO NOTICE;

THERE IS LITTLE THAT WE CAN DO TO CHANGE ,

UNTIL WE NOTICE HOW FAILING TO NOTICE
IS SHAPING ( and limiting the range of) OUR THOUGHTS AND DEEDS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donatien

PE its only too late at the RIP stage.

---

Too true Donatien. Hope springs eternal.

But to get the thread back on track, of valued human traits, I would put forward REALISM for several reasons. It stops ones expectations being too high and hence prevents disappointment. It is also unfair to deny people the same human flaws and frailties one recognises in oneself. No matter how much you adore someone or how high the pedestal you put them on, they are human and it's grossly unfair to expect too much of them. I lost my personal compass and denied someone had such flaws and frailties, I blamed them for it, when really it was my unrealistic expectations that were to blame. I was a fool to myself and unjust to her so definitely REALISM. From there other things can follow.

*looks around.*

Wow I never though I would be getting so many responses from such a small question.

All of these are great and rather informative. Just like the entirety of this forums.

Again my thanks.

Communication is the biggie. Without it no relationship, especially a BDSM one, will work.
It seems that Kats and I spend more time talking about all the aspects and feelings than we do playing. :)

I so agree with you. To me though, honesty is more important than anything else. Without true honesty, love cannot survive, nor can trust, understanding, communication and the others.
In a world where so many people play games, honesty is truly the only thing left that can save us from ourselves AND each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDSM_Tourguide

I'm writing an article right now called "The Seven Essential Elements for Any Successful Relationship." In it, I list the following as absolute essentials:

Trust
Communication
Understanding
Compassion
Honesty
Respect
Commitment

---

There is talk for the sake of talking. Then there is communication.

True communication is not possible without compassion, nor honesty.
You can not communicate without trust and understanding.
Without respect and commitment you would not want to communicate. :)

But honesty IS true communication, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barton

There is talk for the sake of talking. Then there is communication.

True communication is not possible without compassion, nor honesty.
You can not communicate without trust and understanding.
Without respect and commitment you would not want to communicate. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDSM_Tourguide

I'm writing an article right now called "The Seven Essential Elements for Any Successful Relationship." In it, I list the following as absolute essentials:

Trust
Communication
Understanding
Compassion
Honesty
Respect
Commitment

---

In essence, I don't disagree with any of these as essential elements; though I would like to add another 'Love', in the 'agape' sense ( translated in st pauls epistle as charity , but perhaps more accurately as caring), and to precede each with the addition of the word "mutual".( needless to say love(in the eros sense) also comes in handy in some forms of personal relationships!)

However, having come across them expressed as here, as intellectual abstractions, in so many empty Mission Statements put out by uncaring, duplicious , beaurocratic organisations; I feel uneasy, even queazy.

I have come across serious minded dedicated individuals who sincerely believe that they are deeply endowed with all these qualities but, are singularly lacking in the ability to relate successfully with others at least on a personal level.

Notice the difference of association between charity, and caring. Caring as active and practical, whereas charity as more abstract and possibly cold. Big abstract nouns, are so static and intellectual, with none of the sense of dynamism and flow that verbs convey. No passion , No emotion either.

So much so that too much use of them can shrivel and dessicate the mind .

e.g communication. Who is communicating what with whom? and are they communicating or only transmitting. ( It has been wisely said that the only measure of a communication is the response)

In essence what I am trying to get across is perhaps best summarised in the episode in Winnie-the-Pooh, when Pooh and piglet visit Rabbit to wish him a happy thursday. Pooh is basic instinctive humanity, not too intellectually gifted but full of all the humane qualities,; whereas Rabbit is all intellect

.Rabbit who is always busy on 'important matters' is a little irritated by this 'frivolous' intrusion into his life of greater things, and so after wishing him a "very happy thursday" Pooh and Piglet continue their walk.
Pooh is thoughtful, and after quite a while says. " Of course Rabbit is clever;.... Rabbit has brain. "......very long pause......." I suppose that that is why he never understands anything"

I should add that this is not in reference to Tgs use of these forms of words , which are no doubt only intended as headings; but rather their increasing use by organisations as a smoke screen to conceal values that are all too frequently precisely the opposite
Donatien

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donatien

I have come across serious minded dedicated individuals who sincerely believe that they are deeply endowed with all these qualities but, are singularly lacking in the ability to relate successfully with others at least on a personal level.

* * *

.Rabbit who is always busy on 'important matters' is a little irritated by this 'frivolous' intrusion into his life of greater things, and so after wishing him a "very happy thursday" Pooh and Piglet continue their walk.
Pooh is thoughtful, and after quite a while says. " Of course Rabbit is clever;.... Rabbit has brain. "......very long pause......." I suppose that that is why he never understands anything"

---

I noticed in a relationship where the other party never stopped mentioning the importance of trust, integrity and morals etc etc. and that the importance of such virtues were not so important when applied to themselves. Normally when someone is telling you what a surplus they have of these values you can guarantee they don't have as many as yourself. Most people today are knowledgeable enough to be able talk the talk and think it's sufficient without walking the walk so it is most certainly a case of actions speaking louder than words. I tend to drift off into neverland when people promote such values in themselves. I much prefer and am more charitable to people who admit their flaws, probably because I need such charity myself.

As for organisations spouting values and virtues, I think we have the social sciences and academics with no other motivation than to promote their own careers to thank for that and the onset of political correctness and the rationalisation of human relations. I've sat through many a social work seminar listening to earnest people espousing virtues they could only categorise in their brain and were totally incapable of taking them to heart. Bland mission statements either on a organisational or a personal level telling us how we should relate to our fellow human beings is just a way of directing away attention from their own inadequacies.

Pooh was right, brains can become a barrier to understanding. Intellectualisation of human virtues does not necessarily help us to understand something that should come directly from the heart. Trust, integrity, morals and other virtues etc. while can be intellectually defined and found in a dictionary, only have real meaning when their meaning is defined in the heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDSM_Tourguide

I'm writing an article right now called "The Seven Essential Elements for Any Successful Relationship." In it, I list the following as absolute essentials:

Trust
Communication
Understanding
Compassion
Honesty
Respect
Commitment

---

havent you forgotten love? how can one feel those 7 Essential Elements without feeling love?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Lanceloth

havent you forgotten love? how can one feel those 7 Essential Elements without feeling love?

---

No. Actually, I included love, but then removed it in favor of commitment. I don't actually believe that people must feel love for one another to maintain a relationship. However, I do believe they must be committed to one another for a relationship to exist.

A lot of people mistake love for lust, and in those cases love is not experienced anyway, bu the commitment is still there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDSM_Tourguide

A lot of people mistake love for lust, and in those cases love is not experienced anyway, but the commitment is still there.

---

which is why I posted that the greeks used 2 words EROS for sexual passion, and AGAPE for what in english is probably best understood as CARING. Anyway surely it would be a very peculiar and cold bdsm relationship without a degree of lust, and abusive without any caring

Quote:

---

. ST is not a personals or a relationship site. The people there are not there to find lasting friendships, love, or LTRs..
Actually, I included love, but then removed it in favor of commitment. I don't actually believe that people must feel love for one another to maintain a relationship. However, I do believe they must be committed to one another for a relationship to exist.....

---

.
TG I have difficulty with your comittment to the use of this word in this thread; as unless qualifications such as mutual ,and caring, are added in front of it, it could be describing the commitment of a sadist to complete mind control over his sub.
Your list of essentials might stand up if we were considering the work place where one may have to work with colleagues who one doesn't like, but tolerates if they are committed to their work.
But when talking about being committed to each other in a relationship; that is surely a product of the relationship not the prerequisite, and without the mutuality and caring nature of that commitment being made explicit is too ambiguous of meaning.

Since this thread is about values in the(bdsm ) life, and the Dom in SSC bdsm, must accept responsibility for not taking the sub in directions , or further than they wish to go, it may be relevant for me to list the attributes that researchers discovered in all successful psychotherapists, independent of their training and orientation.

Note that the meaning of each noun is amplified and refined by the use of both verbs and adverbs ;_

EMPATHY...........accurately aware of others feelings; staying with these
RESPECT............values other person; a love of truth ; and integrity
CONCRETENESS...definite, real, specific, avoids vagueness
GENUINESS.........authenticity- means as well as goals; no facade ; congruity
CONFRONTATION.drawing attention to ambiguities and unnoticed resources
IMMEDIACY.........awareness of " here and now"; 'actuality ' put into words

These are the characteristics associated with another healthy "win/win" relationship in which there is at least an implied power imbalance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donatien

These are the characteristics associated with another healthy "win/win" relationship in which there is at least an implied power imbalance

---

Whatever, dude. You do your thing, I'll do mine. Just quit picking apart my posts and preaching at me about what a relationship MUST have to be successful.

If I'd written the seven essential elements article, which I haven't and I'm probably not going to, it would just be my opinion of what I see are necessary things from my perspective. Then again, I'm also not talking about the standard, defined, and accepted term for "relationship" either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDSM_Tourguide

No. Actually, I included love, but then removed it in favor of commitment. I don't actually believe that people must feel love for one another to maintain a relationship. However, I do believe they must be committed to one another for a relationship to exist.

A lot of people mistake love for lust, and in those cases love is not experienced anyway, bu the commitment is still there.

---

Perhaps its just me only wanting relationships where i know, respect and love the person i am with. I have newer tried a "one night stand" and must admit to not wanting to. Perhaps that is why i cant see a relationship where commitment can exist without there being love. Perhaps it lies in the definition of a relationship, which for me implies either friendship (which includes a fealing of love for the friend) or a boyfriend or girlfriend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Lanceloth

Perhaps its just me only wanting relationships where i know, respect and love the person i am with. I have newer tried a "one night stand" and must admit to not wanting to. Perhaps that is why i cant see a relationship where commitment can exist without there being love. Perhaps it lies in the definition of a relationship, which for me implies either friendship (which includes a fealing of love for the friend) or a boyfriend or girlfriend.

---

I think many people tend to look too marrowly at the term "relationship." A relationship does not simply indicate marriage, a boyfriend-girlfriend, or a dominant-submissive aspect. A relationship can be defined by many other types of partnerships and friendships.

A mentor/trainer-submissive/slave relationship, for instance is a fine example of an "outside of the box" relationship. A mentor or trainer trains a submissive pr slave for the benefit of a third party. Certainly, the trainer and submissive have a relationship, they have to trust one another, communicate well, etc. But I do not think they love on another. Since a trainer is supposed to objectively train the submissive in a variety of disciplines, positions and techniques, his objectivity would be compromised by feelings of love and closeness.

Another example of a non-standard relationship is that of the top and bottom. These people may only meet at play parties every week or so, but in many cases both tops and bottoms have partners they enjoy playing with more than others. The top will seek out certain bottoms or vice versa, and a relationship does exist, even with a certain level of commitment, but I would venture again to say that neither of them loves the other.

This is why I chose not to write the article to which I had made mention earlier in this thread. It's just too hard to put some relationships into words and to define many forms of non-standard relationships.

And even in standard relationships, it's not necessarily required for people to love one another. I have many friends with which I speak and give advice and have a generally friendly relationship, but I don't love them. I enjoy their company, I enjoy the friendship we share, and I trust and communicate with many of them, but I don't feel love toward them.

So, in my view, it is not necessary to feel love to have a working relationship. It is, however, necessary to understand that the term can mean many more things than people tend to think it can mean.