Trust in a D/s relationship

by Godfather Dom

Trust in another is commonly understood as, 'a level of assurance that another's behavior is consistent and beneficial to the truster'. And trust in one's self as, 'a level of assurance that my behavior is consistent and beneficial to me'. These descriptions seem to be the products of the rational mind, as our conclusions about the character of behavior seem to be reached by thinking, reflecting. Indeed, these conclusions concern one's values which, as moral choices, are established by thoughts about one's experiences, or conscious teachings by others.

Then if the other (or yourself) continues to act in a consistent and beneficial manner, assurance is deepened, and trust builds. To the contrary, if their behavior is not either consistent and/or beneficial, we lose trust. And important departures from consistency and beneficiality cause a large loss of trust. This is the kind of thinking behind many essays or opinions on the role of trust. ' Why trust is important'. 'How to gain or lose thrust'. How-to texts.

But how about the reciprocity of trusts?If, by your behavior you seem to lose a lot of trust in me, how fares my trust in you? If still strong, is such an unrequited trust like unrequited love? We have long ago decided that unrequited love, or even lost love, is a fantasy and doomed. 'Friendship can turn into love, but love never turns into friendship'? Perhaps you know some couples who have fallen out of love but are still friends. But friendships are of a wide variety, and the loss of an intimate love will play a significant factor in the quality of a friendship -- thus, even the normal, as well as the exception, proving the rule.

But if you lose your trust in me (as judged by your behavior), isn't it because of my behavior?And so, how can I claim that my trust in you is still strong, if my behavior led you to lose trust in me?If I truly trust you, why would I act so as to cause you to lose trust in me?These seeming paradoxes do have a basis in truth, IMO.

Even as we use words to communicate our conscious meanings, we also use words to attempt to explain the meaning of our emotions. Thus, although the meaning of trust as explained by words seems to make trust a thinking object, trust really is based in our emotions. We rationalize why and how we feel trust. But since people communicate with words, how then can we trust each other?How can our rationalizations about each other's behavior possibly affect our emotions?

They don't, or barely do -- through behavior. But the kind of trust needed for a D/s pair is through an emotional resonance. There are some unthinkable things about each other -- different, no doubt -- that connect emotionally, and we trust -- snap! Thus, the mystery, the spiritual. And these emotional trustings are mutually reinforced between our selfs. One cannot exist without the other. Whatever the level of conscious trust, it ultimately depends on the strength of the emotional trust connection.

Thus, there can be, and often is, a disconnect between our conscious trust for the other and our emotional underpinning trusting. Even in our trust of our selfs. (We can lose trust in our selfs.) I think that explains the paradox of unrequited trust. If there is NO strong resonant connection between our emotional trusts, then a strong conscious trust is a stubborn obsession of the will. If there IS a strong resonance, then an apparent loss in trust in me by you, indicated by my interpretation of your behavior, is wrong. And my interpretation is wrong.

There is no trust-o-meter that can fathom emotional trust. It can only be plumbed by feelings that are unclouded by a tricky consciousness.