|
MsLilac -> RE: Is Penetration Inherently Submissive? (5/8/2008 4:47:50 AM)
|
Penetration is not inherently submissive. The one who expends the most energy during a scene/intercourse/situation isn’t necessarily the dominant one in the act. Context is everything, and who is actually controlling the situation is where you will find the dominant party in an act.
Who is on top, who is more vocal, who is doing who, does not indicate the dominant party. I personally get very little from riding on top of my slave, it does not tickle my hot spots much. One of the positions that does tickle my hotspot is doggy style….
Now, superficially I’m on all fours being fucked hard and deep. My slave is holding on to me, banging away, and is most obviously the one expending the energy, whilst I sit there passively and receive. Does that make me sub? Does it heck!! In the doggy position, his cock in rubbing my ‘G’ spot better than any other position, and my knees get a rest. Doggy position allows either he or I to rub my clit -- ‘G’ spot rubbing and clit rubbing leads to the most mind blowing orgasms for me. Depending upon my mood, I may or may not allow him to cum. I call the shots, I say how and where I want it. I am the one ordering him to go faster, slower, deeper. I am the one growling and shouting at him. I am the one who says stop if I want to, and he will always obey. He and his cock are at my bidding. He certainly will not cum until I allow it. My slave will tell you he does not feel the slightest bit dominant fucking me… in any position.
I may occasionally, when feeling devious, use a torture implement on his body during the act, but it is absolutely not necessary for our power exchange, I’m still the alpha in our relationship, regardless. That is just my sadistic side playing, it indicates nothing about our D/s structure. I would question the D/s basis of my relationship if I *had* to torture/deny orgasm/ride him on top, to elicit submission on the man I do it to -- as a re-enforcement, yeah maybe. As the only route to ensure his submission, and *prove* my dominance over him, hell no.
Now, I could ban penetration for myself except for say, riding him on top aggressively, when I wish to comply with one dimensional, narrow-minded, peer induced, symbolic lifestyle protocols, that don’t really gel with *my* context, or the way I think. But then, I would miss out on something that I find pleasurable, something that re-enforces the bond we have, and get frustrated and be unfulfilled.
One could ask, does the male dom who has his sub/slave ride him on top make him any less dominant? Of course not. He is getting serviced, whilst getting a damn good eyeful. Again, it’s about context and control.
This penis-centric notion that the cock is all-mighty and powerful and ruling is just perpetrating a wrong, rather sexist, unenlightened and borderline misogynistic view, imho. To me, if one truly holds the kind of symbolic notion that a hard cock has that kind of power over their vagina, potentially or otherwise, then one cannot be confidently dominant in a relationship with a male, whether the relationship is sexual or not, imho. It really is just all silly, and over analytical.
I actually tend to symbolically see the vagina as ‘sheathing’ the penis, taking what it wants, using it to stimulate yummy spots, whilst at the same time using it to tease and control the penis; as well as ‘taking‘ part of his essence away if the vagina wants to. Where as others will see it as ‘invading’. As I say - context and control is everything, penetration in itself has nothing inherent to it.
Crikey, they are just body parts, built from eons of continuing evolutionary perfection, that compliment each other flawlessly. Just enjoy them and have fun! ;)
|
|
|
|
