True, the ultimate power in a relationship is the ablity to walk away, just as the ultimate power over you can have over a thing is the power to destroy it (just ask the U.S. goverment).

That doesn't mean that it's the most important power in a relationship though. It's really only important if one party has that power and the other doesn't (see the example above i.e. the U.S. goverment).

Assuming both parties in a relationship have the power to walk away, in many ways it's the least important power they posess.

See, I thought you meant "Groverment".

"My Fellow Americans - NEAR..... FAR!"

That's part of what creates quality, balanced relationships in the D/s context: the Dom has all the power to get what he/she wants to be happy, but has to keep the sub happy.

The sub has nominally no power, but has someone commited to providing a pleasant living environment.

As long as both keep an eye on their needs and getting them met, the functional result is not as far from typical as they like to pretend. IMHO.

As he said; power exchange. The D only has the power the s gives.

And ditto: I have recently come to some sobering realizations (which is strong coming from a drunkard like me).

I think you are absolutely right.

Further, I think you can easily use this as a criteria for identifying high-risk relationships (in terms of emotional unhealthiness): when the difference in "ability to walk if it gets to bad" is too pronounced, one partner will end up taking advantage of the other, while feeling emotionally uncommited themselves.

Heh... I hate it when I type so quickly that I don't notice my own typos. "It gets too bad.", not "to bad."

I don't agree. I have two close friends who only got out of relationships where they were unnapreciated and disdained by their partners, often including being cheated on and yelled at on a regular basis... in essence suffering emotional abuse of sorts...

Neither one left. Both would still be there had their partners not decided that they were, essentially "Too boring", and left.

Both were heartbroken, and took months to gain the perspective to figure out what their own friends had been telling them throughout the months and even years leading up the relationship end: that they were not appreciated, not respected, and needed to leave.

In both cases, the "powerless" partner was the one who (in the opinion of outside observers) had more reason to leave.

I think this is really right about gaming, too. Which isn't that odd, since playing with someone in a game is clearly another sort of relationship...

Hey...
do you mind if I like to this?

it's ...insightful.

followed sharifah's link.

i'm trying to place my thought in terms of co-ordinating with your though (i would say in relationship to your thought... but). it's too esrly after a night of littel sleep.

i am thinking that the issue of self empowerment has a factor there. when one isn;t self empowered, one seeks power elsewhere. and gives it usually to someone to give back to us. when you own your own power, _then_ you are free to leave. owning one's power (or self is not easy though. and i would venture to say that society is more concerned with the quest for easy these days than the quest for (fill in blank)(knowledge, self...)

interesting post. i do agree that the concepts carry over and transcend the original concept in the book.

off to find caffeine now that my brain is taking issue with the order of my day.