Jun 132012
 

 From Anonymous, via Formspring:

“I am curious, what part does romance play (if any) in your Dominance? Do you love your boy and have you ever played with someone that you have no real emotional attachment to?”

What part does romance play (if any) in your Dominance? I’m not sure what you mean by “romance”? If you mean chocolates and roses and candlelit dinners, then romance plays little or no part it my dominance or in my current relationship.

Now I’m wondering, what is romance? According to the OED, romance is “Ardour or warmth of feeling in a love affair; love, esp. of an idealized or sentimental kind.” If we’re going with that definition, certainly, there is love and warmth, but it’s not idealized or sentimentalized. If anything, I’m too much of a realist about the whole thing.

According to Wikipedia, romance is “love emphasizing emotion over libido.” I don’t think that definition works for me because I can’t separate emotion from libido–one isn’t over the other–they’re mutually informing. I want to fuck boy because I feel something for him, and I feel something for him because we fuck.

According to Cleverbot, (a dear friend who I could chat with for hours) “Romance is the appreciation of two people who are celebrating the lucky coincidence that they found each other.” This kinda works for me because it allows romance to be a celebration without defining what that celebration looks like (it often looks like fucking). If we’re going with the bot’s definition of romance, then yes, romance does play a part in my relationship and in my dominance too (since the D/s dynamic is integral to the relationship).

Do you love your boy? Madly. I love him and I’m in love with him. Sometimes I hate him, too. On occasion, I’m indifferent–it’s the indifference that’s dangerous.

Have you ever played with someone that you have no real emotional attachment to? Yes. I have played with people I’ve had little emotional attachment to. Those experiences weren’t as broadly fulfilling as playing with the boy who I am attached to. They weren’t nearly as interesting, either.

(Do you have a question? Ask!)

  2 Responses to “romance, love, and play”

  1. I like Cleverbot's definition of romance. I consider myself a very romance-driven person within that definition, but am very unromantic when going by the more traditional "trappings" definitions of romance.

  2. @WBW: Yeah. I'm with you. Chocolates get eaten, flowers die, candles catch things on fire (at least around me). Plus that stuff is so fucking generic anyway.

    I think it's funny that the bot came up with the definition I most agree with. I guess I have all the warmth of a bot (which might be a lot).

    Yeah, that rhymed. No, I didn't mean to. Yes, I'm leaving it.

 Leave a Reply