Intimacy

[Deleted Member]

Does your experience in the LS promote or objectify intimacy?

I am LS-adjacent and have been for many years. I have had relationships where my partner and I shared a private dynamic (although not in the traditional D/s sense) and others that were pure improvisation (the more common/civilian model.) In all cases in my relationship life, I am focused on authentic connection and am fortunate to have shared with my partners as I have.

That said, I have been in situationships (as well as observed in the world around me) where I felt a definite shift in sexual expression, as though we (yes, me too) were doing it AT each other rather than WITH each other. This can apply to the first time getting naked or an ongoing thing.

I personally prefer to feel the flow WITH my partners. That is my preference and I don’t judge others for doing it differently, it’s simply what does it for me.

How about you? Does your Dom/Domme evaluate your needs and then reach into the pleasure chest in order to find the right tool for the job or do they break out the riding crop (for example) because it’s their favorite? As the D, which method do you employ?

Let’s discuss!

[ca****]

Interesting

[ca****]

Amazing

[Deleted Member]

@femmekat: I agree totally.

Personally, I do not use people for sex. Rather, I use sex as a medi to cultivate closeness and intimacy through listening.

[Deleted Member]

*medium

[Sc****]

Both. I know that sounds like a cop-out answer. I don't want to type out a long psychological treatise, but what it boils down to is that while you can achieve levels of honesty and intimacy rarely found otherwise, that the LS can present barriers to achieving, mmm..unfettered intimacy.

It's logical on its face. The fetishes and kinks of the LS act as surrogates or proxies for one thing or another. In this sense, it's a barrier to connecting to the other person fully. Is this a problem? Well, only the individual can answer that. And, it does depend on the degree of the surrogate that we're talking about.

I'm expecting controversy from this post. Don't let me down :D

[Deleted Member]

  1 hour ago, ScalpelPrecision said:

Both. I know that sounds like a cop-out answer. I don't want to type out a long psychological treatise, but what it boils down to is that while you can achieve levels of honesty and intimacy rarely found otherwise, that the LS can present barriers to achieving, mmm..unfettered intimacy.

It's logical on its face. The fetishes and kinks of the LS act as surrogates or proxies for one thing or another. In this sense, it's a barrier to connecting to the other person fully. Is this a problem? Well, only the individual can answer that. And, it does depend on the degree of the surrogate that we're talking about.

I'm expecting controversy from this post. Don't let me down :D

Expand  

I agree with you, in principle.

Any framework, no matter how healthy, has finite borders and is best used as a beginning.

imho 😉

[Deleted Member]

  49 minutes ago, femmekat said:

The key that most d/s dynamic relationships require is respect for one another’s boundaries, established tastes, and values. Honestly communication is one of the sexiest things about kink. So many men miss this mark and end up alienating their potential partners. Consent is by its nature informing the dominance. It’s essential. I can’t offer you my consent if you don’t know what I’m consenting to…

Expand  

Bingo 🎯

[Deleted Member]

  34 minutes ago, femmekat said:

Do you think some people are hiding behind kink so they don’t need to have real connections? I’ve definitely experienced this.

Expand  

Absolutely. Conventionality is a common tool for people to find their individual identity by relating to a group standard. Cultivation of the independent self/mind can be very risky…remember Socrates?

That said, whatever a person chooses is 100% fine as long as they understand their choice.

That said, a Picasso can create a masterpiece with crayons so it’s all about how we cultivate ourselves within the given framework as a starting point.

[Sw****]

I always do a check with my sub/s to make sure she is pleased with how she is being dominated. The problem is when they are afraid to admit they are not pleased. With being an empath too I'm already aware but I still ask for conversational purposes and to let them know they can freely tell me kuz I have no ego. I do punish them tho for not telling me but not physically. I restrain them and give less cuddles and affection when they can't use their words as I desire as a Dom/Brat Tamer

[adrenalina75]

What is LS? Am I being dumb?

[adrenalina75]

Lifestyle!!! Duh 😂

[Deleted Member]

  5 minutes ago, adrenalina75 said:

Lifestyle!!! Duh 😂

Expand  

🤓😂

[Sc****]

  1 hour ago, femmekat said:

Do you think some people are hiding behind kink so they don’t need to have real connections? I’ve definitely experienced this.

Expand  

Legitimate fetishes & kinks, yes.

It's not that they are preventing real connections, it's about the depth of the connection. Think back to when you had your first crush, or observed a friend having theirs. Maybe it was pop star, athlete, person from school, etc. That crush becomes an obsession, all-consuming. To the point that your *** heats up thinking about them, and you'd do anything for their attention, and so on.

Was your experience real? Absolutely. You felt the physiology of love/lust. Did you love that person down to the core of your being? Possibly. Was it a real connection, sustainable over time? Not at all.

Intimacy is layered like an onion. It keeps going. You think it's as deep as you can get, then you find out that was an illusion and it gets deeper. I'm sure we've all already experienced that.

Well, it keeps going far deeper than we realize, me included. I know that my interests present certain barriers to intimacy. But it's not a binary problem of intimacy or no intimacy. If I'm at a 3/10 on intimacy, and I'm enjoying the connection, then hell yeah I want to go further. Is anyone going to get to that 10 doing LS shit. Maybe? It depends on the degree of its involvement in your psyche. Do you have to have X kink/fetish in order to really get off. If yes, then you know it's probably pretty deep in there.

I'm not saying we all give up kinky things and we'll achieve magical unbounded intimacy. I'm saying be mindful and pay attention to your thoughts and behavior if you think something is getting in the way.

[Sw****]

Oh in other words to me it promotes intimacy...for me atleast. Intimacy is an art and so are kinks. Sorry I didn't answer the first time. Conversation is a part of intimacy and it is also an art.

[cu****]

  4 hours ago, ScalpelPrecision said:

Both. I know that sounds like a cop-out answer. I don't want to type out a long psychological treatise, but what it boils down to is that while you can achieve levels of honesty and intimacy rarely found otherwise, that the LS can present barriers to achieving, mmm..unfettered intimacy.

It's logical on its face. The fetishes and kinks of the LS act as surrogates or proxies for one thing or another. In this sense, it's a barrier to connecting to the other person fully. Is this a problem? Well, only the individual can answer that. And, it does depend on the degree of the surrogate that we're talking about.

I'm expecting controversy from this post. Don't let me down :D

Expand  

Not a cop-out at all. Emotions are on a spectrum and rarely black and white. A person can determine that they attracted to another person and feel lust but the problem is the act of sex is inherently intimate as well. One another are bearing all physically and emotionally whether it is acknowledged or not. I think that for LS particularly this is why it is so important to have a solid foundation to the relationship. With that you begin to understand that intimacy exists in many forms outside of just a sexual connection. It becomes a culmination of many little things that are unique to your relationship with the other. But to achieve that a great deal of introspection is needed for both partners, not just one or the other, and also a great deal of communication and mutual respect.

[Hezzair]

I feel it is completely dependent upon the parties involved and the effort they put into it, how they want it to flow. I am a part of the poly lifestyle, a swinger, and the D/s lifestyle. I find the swinger only people tend to gravitate to surface only connections or friend only connections at best. They may have a few play friends or a select group of friends with whom they are closer, and some may even evolve into deep friendships but not love. The poly people are obviously open to deeper connections, many having started out as swingers and finding that they needed more emotional connections. The D/s community ,imho , lends itself to more in-depth connections because you need to develop trust for a power exchange relationship in order for it to work positively.

[It****]

The reason I’ve stayed in the lifestyle for thirty plus years is that the level of intimacy is so much higher than in the vanilla world.

[TJ****]

In my world (can't speak for other's experience in the LS) kink is a vehicle to build trust, and handled with communication and care, builds a level of trust that enables a depth of intimacy that is otherwise unachievable... That level of trust allows the people in the dynamic to give over the parts of themselves
that they would never dare give to the average person or lover.

When trust is built to the point of being able to express themselves fully, completely, honestly, true intimacy begins.

[Ke****]

Agree w tj

[Adrid]

I just completed a ritual on the topic of transmutation with my slave, and it was very very intimate.
We both definitely felt it.
I feel much closer to them.

[Ri****]

Sadly, everything that I would add to this thread has already been iterated at least once... however, in my opinion, it is impossible to reduce the act of intimacy to the level of an object or possession... unless I am understanding the meaning incorrectly.

[Fr****]

We both started this as wanting to be single in the LS, and after realizing how undeniable our connection was and how deep the intimacy felt we decided to become a couple. I wouldn’t change it for anything, to me the intimacy, honesty and communication is what’s bringing us closer together more and more each time.

We’ve both experienced things we’ve never experienced before with anyone else, we have a flow between us that’s so in sync it’s wild. Our make out sessions are the most intimate and best I’ve had in my life and I’m 48! It definitely makes me feel desired like never before! My Dom is definitely a pleaser and puts me and anyone who plays with us before himself. I’ve been slowly trying to be a pleaser to him as well, when he allows it. I believe it’s help bring us closer together as he’s allowed himself to become *** in those moments.

[Th****]

I do things because I like them. Doesn't matter if my subby enjoys them. It's about my pleasure, not his. Plus screams fill my heart with glee.

[Deleted Member]

This is a great question with multiple layers to it, and one that has a number of POVs; but the correct answer to the first question asked is "Whatever has been clearly and unequivocally agreed to."

Now, what does that "LOOK" like? THAT is the thing to answer, and (spoiler) it will NOT look the same among the full set of LS, LS-adjacent, and LS-removed folks because (spoiler) people are unique. So, how is this fixed?

First, communicate unabashedly. The truest nexus of control exists somewhere around three inches behind the eyes and three inches radial of that place—this person is the first one we must be true to and true with.

Second, understand that you will likely receive only partial transparency on anything asked of others for any number of reasons (most innocent, some not). Usually it's just human self-preservation. That said, be aware that you will need to listen and pay closer attention, because the words will not (and usually cannot) tell the whole story. Ask the right questions in the right way.**

Last, when actually in a dynamic, it's important to *validate and verify that the initial assumptions still hold*. This bears restating. People being people, change in our inner worlds is a certainty. *Check. In.*

A partner, after multiple successful and favorable "objectified moments of intimacy" (I'll consider this "detached"), may find that they want greater "promotion of interconnectedness" (I'll consider this "attaching")—after all, it looks like things are going well and that person has been great so far, so "Why not bond?" creeps into thinking. That is expected in absence of *fundamental **** (the "suffering without benefit" sort). Other way around also exists, usually when the suffering of detachment is determined "too great to bear" but emotions were already involved and bonds are fraying consistently.

If you hit the first and second point, where you're clear on your own desires and you understand that partners may not fully express their own thoughts for something as simple as not knowing how to say "I don't have the words for what I want here" (freebie), then the last becomes an afterthought naturally integrated into the process. Then you get to determine whether you agree to the changes in dynamics (because that allows you to *take needed sctions* relative to those changes—you become adaptive).

For me, it is imperative that I be present in this space of connection; otherwise, the question of "promotion of" or "objectification of" intimacy is met with the brickwall answer of "Whatever my mood wants," which is inconsistent and, for many who let that be their norm, can potentially be dangerous, exploitative, or self-destructive.

**Why-questions (like "Why are you wanting this kind of play?") are a question type that many people ask others, but ironically that may be unfair since that one may never have asked that of themselves and listened for a response! (That is, how could you expect a genuine reason with any sort of depth?) So, that's a "here's some homework" sort of question *which must be addressed from the perspective of equals* (it's a "human" question type, not a "kink" type). If the line of questioning is here, the dynamic is probably not suited for play at that time—*be okay with that*.