You are a very scary person my friend. After our last talk I've made a shift, which I can't really describe, but it also has me thinking along similar lines as what you discuss in this post.
That is the sustainability portion.
I do hold all the power. I do negotiate, and I seek high quality experiences. Thus of course said experiences are going to be few and far between, which is what I have experienced and what has also kept me depressed for years. As such relationships have been unsustainable, even when they work they will be doomed from the start by my own choices, so they will not work for long.
Not that I would argue those failed relationships are all on me either. Many psychos don't know that they are psycho, they can not be trusted, thus I can not submit.
Yes I want to submit on my "terms", but the way I have it structured in my mind and the way I foresee it working is that I am only negotiating that my potential partner be it male or female, shares all of my fetishes, and that I am safe. and that's it. I will share my fantasies, but I would never hold them to playing them out nor fully expect them. In fact just the opposite. I would much prefer that it come from them let them have all the power let them change whatever they want. I have this sort of give up as much control as you are willing to take vibe. I imagine it to be sustainable long term, but then my reality has not shown that to be the case.
Yes our power collapses, because we designed our power to collapse in the first place. It is simply the first step. You have the power to make 1 choice. to submit. So you are forced to be careful whom you make that choice with. Even if you end up like me alone remembering all of those bittersweet and short lived moments, yearning for the next one.
And might be the spur I needed to make my VERY FIRST (oh dear) substack post.
As of now though, three thoughts only. I promise not to be too wordy.
First, I'm really not so sure if it applies ANYWHERE NEAR as much to other configurations. Ostensibly yes. But there's something weirdly gendered about all this in ways in which "but the sub wants to submit" doesn't QUITE deal with. We did discuss. I had thought it was bollocks then I had Lived Experience that made me reconsider.
Second. I absolutely LOVE the goal vs process distinction for play/scene stopping. And it very much checks out in my experience.
Thirdly, and this is subtle:
>>However, in the moment, I don’t want to get up from my comfy seat to fetch her a coffee [ and disregarding this part: not to take another twenty lashes, nor to not be able to have an orgasm.]
I was reading that whole section and it felt like I was almost seeing a thing there yet not quite. So, I'm not sure if what I'm about to say is that thing. So. This situation IN ITSELF doesn't describe a d/s dynamic but any relationship (where, afaik, people do stuff they DON'T *QUITE* WANT TO DO at a time, I mean life consists largely of doing stuff one does not QUITE want to do really?).
I think what defines d/s dynamic is the breach on the other side. YOU do the normal stuff people do for their partners, and then on top of this you do stuff that people rarely if ever do (at least nowadays). But SHE DOES NOT, unless she feels like it.
D/s isn't about sacrificial service, or rather, that sacrificial service (broadly: including getting up from the sofa to make that tea when you'd rather stay on it) is not a sufficient condition (it might not even be necessary, from where I'm sitting but that's a different story) for d/s. Two people who ALWAYS make service sacrifices for each other are not in a d/s dynamic. What is needed is asymmetry, the more "unreasonable", the better.
You are a very scary person my friend. After our last talk I've made a shift, which I can't really describe, but it also has me thinking along similar lines as what you discuss in this post.
That is the sustainability portion.
I do hold all the power. I do negotiate, and I seek high quality experiences. Thus of course said experiences are going to be few and far between, which is what I have experienced and what has also kept me depressed for years. As such relationships have been unsustainable, even when they work they will be doomed from the start by my own choices, so they will not work for long.
Not that I would argue those failed relationships are all on me either. Many psychos don't know that they are psycho, they can not be trusted, thus I can not submit.
Yes I want to submit on my "terms", but the way I have it structured in my mind and the way I foresee it working is that I am only negotiating that my potential partner be it male or female, shares all of my fetishes, and that I am safe. and that's it. I will share my fantasies, but I would never hold them to playing them out nor fully expect them. In fact just the opposite. I would much prefer that it come from them let them have all the power let them change whatever they want. I have this sort of give up as much control as you are willing to take vibe. I imagine it to be sustainable long term, but then my reality has not shown that to be the case.
Yes our power collapses, because we designed our power to collapse in the first place. It is simply the first step. You have the power to make 1 choice. to submit. So you are forced to be careful whom you make that choice with. Even if you end up like me alone remembering all of those bittersweet and short lived moments, yearning for the next one.
This came out very nice indeed.
And might be the spur I needed to make my VERY FIRST (oh dear) substack post.
As of now though, three thoughts only. I promise not to be too wordy.
First, I'm really not so sure if it applies ANYWHERE NEAR as much to other configurations. Ostensibly yes. But there's something weirdly gendered about all this in ways in which "but the sub wants to submit" doesn't QUITE deal with. We did discuss. I had thought it was bollocks then I had Lived Experience that made me reconsider.
Second. I absolutely LOVE the goal vs process distinction for play/scene stopping. And it very much checks out in my experience.
Thirdly, and this is subtle:
>>However, in the moment, I don’t want to get up from my comfy seat to fetch her a coffee [ and disregarding this part: not to take another twenty lashes, nor to not be able to have an orgasm.]
I was reading that whole section and it felt like I was almost seeing a thing there yet not quite. So, I'm not sure if what I'm about to say is that thing. So. This situation IN ITSELF doesn't describe a d/s dynamic but any relationship (where, afaik, people do stuff they DON'T *QUITE* WANT TO DO at a time, I mean life consists largely of doing stuff one does not QUITE want to do really?).
I think what defines d/s dynamic is the breach on the other side. YOU do the normal stuff people do for their partners, and then on top of this you do stuff that people rarely if ever do (at least nowadays). But SHE DOES NOT, unless she feels like it.
D/s isn't about sacrificial service, or rather, that sacrificial service (broadly: including getting up from the sofa to make that tea when you'd rather stay on it) is not a sufficient condition (it might not even be necessary, from where I'm sitting but that's a different story) for d/s. Two people who ALWAYS make service sacrifices for each other are not in a d/s dynamic. What is needed is asymmetry, the more "unreasonable", the better.