Number of play partners

Number of play partners (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

subbiewench -> Number of play partners (6/15/2005 8:44:03 PM)
Hello A/all, I have a couple of questions related to the number of play partners with whom people choose to become involved at one time. I know this is a widely varied community and there will be those with greatly differing opinions but I would just like to get an idea of others' thoughts on the issue. I am a straight, female, unowned submissive so what follows appears in those terms but I believe the questions remain pretty much the same for anyone. I have gotten the impression that many people are playing (something beyond just chatting online, talking on the phone or meeting casually to get to know someone better) with several others during the same time period. Not as in a setting such as a dungeon or special event where multiple people are in attendance but more in terms of being with person A even numbered days and person B on the odd ones. Is this in error? In my younger days (vanilla), the few times I tried dating more than one person at a time it ended badly. Even if the relationship was very casual and each was aware that I was seeing someone else. Add those experiences to my natural disinclination to share (due either to shelfishness or insecurity, probably both) and mix in a huge helping of Catholic Guilt and I find I can only deal well with only one relationship (the level of intimacy and presence or absence of intercourse vary with each) at a time. That is why the concept of serial monogamy suits me well. I have only "come out of the closet" and begun to seek others who enjoy the BDSM lifestyle in the last 6 months or so. I find I have many more opportunities to get to know people who are interested in pursuing something than I ever had in the past (a wonderful boost to my ego). I have usually dealt with others in sort of a "first come, first served" basis but now a feast is being laid before me. I don't want to let this new-found popularity go to my head and I do want to be honest with those I get to know. I also don't want to become involved with someone only to end things because someone "better" comes along. I have a feeling it would be easiest to just give in to my desires and play with anyone with whom there is a mutual attraction. However, I don't think I could do that successfully. Not to mention that old guilt thing. How do others deal with such issues? I don't/wouldn't put the same type of requirements on those with whom I may become involved. However, to be perfectly honest, I would much prefer to become involved with those who feel the same way I do, that way much of what is written above becomes mute. Just my $0.02 worth as I try to find myself in terms of this lifestyle. Please feel free to add yours thoughts and feelings. Thank you, subbiewench a.k.a kat

Quivver -> RE: Number of play partners (6/15/2005 9:45:13 PM)
"serial monogamy" Seems we buy the same cereal Kat. actually all teasing aside, this is something I battle myself. the popularity you speak of is a rush, but the numbers alone (Dom per submissive) guarantee our popularity. and being relitivly new so many step up to the plate offering to show us the ropes. (pun intended) i honestly wish variety was a staple of mine. one day of Honey Nut Cheerios, Cinnamon Toast Crunch the next. Problem is weeding through the Frosted Flakes, some are name brand others generic, when all I really want are Fruit Loops. Honey Nut Cheerios and Cinimon Toast Crunch have their merits but lack the Orange things that I really want. Thing is when Fruit Loops become scarace and all you've got to pick from is the others, self denial is a difficult choice to make. Thank God Frosted Flakes don't come in Ornage.

shylyseductive -> RE: Number of play partners (6/15/2005 11:49:39 PM)
Thank you for a well expressed letter. I have felt the same and have noticed many Doms like to play with more than one. Makes me sound "old fashioned" but i prefer to spend my time on a one to one basis. Seems if they put all this attention to "one" they may actually have a successful relationship. Soft

GreyStorm -> RE: Number of play partners (6/16/2005 4:00:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Quivver "serial monogamy" Seems we buy the same cereal Kat. actually all teasing aside, this is something I battle myself. the popularity you speak of is a rush, but the numbers alone (Dom per submissive) guarantee our popularity. and being relitivly new so many step up to the plate offering to show us the ropes. (pun intended) i honestly wish variety was a staple of mine. one day of Honey Nut Cheerios, Cinnamon Toast Crunch the next. Problem is weeding through the Frosted Flakes, some are name brand others generic, when all I really want are Fruit Loops. Honey Nut Cheerios and Cinimon Toast Crunch have their merits but lack the Orange things that I really want. Thing is when Fruit Loops become scarace and all you've got to pick from is the others, self denial is a difficult choice to make. Thank God Frosted Flakes don't come in Ornage. Hey, I like Frosted Flakes....and Cocoa Krispies. Now I'm hungry!

LadyAngelika -> RE: Number of play partners (6/16/2005 4:32:41 AM)
quote: However, to be perfectly honest, I would much prefer to become involved with those who feel the same way I do, that way much of what is written above becomes mute. kat, Regardless of what the issue is, we increase our chances of a successful relationship when all partners involved approach it in a similar way. You say serial monogamy might be right for you. Then you have an idea of what you want, which is a good thing. You don't have to be monogamous just like you don't have to polygamous or date more then one person at one time. For the record, in order to avoid dating more then one person at one time and having it end badly, honesty and openness about your intent should usually help avoid some of the problems. Also, and I repeat my initial point, getting involved with people who understand and can appreciated a poly way of life might help too. Now as for what’s right for you, you have to figure that out for yourself. You can try one or the other and see if it works for you and then make the necessary adjustments. But openness and honesty with those you are experimenting with will hopefully save you a lot of grief. - LA

EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Number of play partners (6/16/2005 6:15:17 AM)
In the first dating stages it makes sense to date a few people at once. How many depends on your life, your time and energy. I COULD have as many play partners as I want. I am finding that having 5 semi-regular play partners (2 of which are part of intensly intimate relationships) is pretty much where I can stay and not get totally overwhelmed. I still have spontaneous scenes with new people, but nothing farther than that at this point in time. Explore, see what works for you. As long as you are open and honest about everyone then they can accept the situation or not. And when you feel relationships starting to develop organically, then you go down that path. Whether you end up with one lifetime partner or 8, what matters is that you feel a connection with them. There's no number limit on that on any stage of the process.

buffiyum -> RE: Number of play partners (6/20/2005 3:43:01 PM)
For this one, well, i like to play bdsm with Many because They all do that play, whether flogging, or whatever, differentely. i enjoy these differences in technique. i am always hoping to discover the One most closely in tune with how i approach the "Lifestyle", whether Wwe meet through 'play', or through discussions at a munch or where ever. i use to worry that playing with so Many would give a disgust to that Speciale One for whom the girl looks. i dont worry anymore. Life is short and so am i. Life is to be lived and i intende to live it to the fullest.... so i do. If the One for whom the girl searches, was that disgusted with the fact that i like, no Love, to 'play', then obviousely He would not be the One. ah well, such is life. If i did the One-at-a-time thing.... i'd maybe would Not play very often and it would become a 'full-time' job in itselfe and just how fun is that (grins). i think Eeveryone has to approache the Lifestyle in Ttheir own way, in the manner most comfortable for Tthem. It sounds like that is what you are doing and right on, i say, because Wwe must each of Uus, be true to Oourselves, before Wwe can be true to anyone else. respectfully, buffiyum

dragonofjapan -> RE: Number of play partners (6/20/2005 4:07:43 PM)
I don't play. For me this and every relationship I have in life borders on being a religious experience. I have found one simple rule and a few interesting points. Rule: Keep your word. It is in life the only thing you truly have to give. The job the food the kids and wife all come from someplace else and are a gift to you. If you break, even bend your word at all, you will damage the relationship. Interesting points: Catholic guilt ( of which I have great envy, because you, good jewish girls and strict everything can make sex SOOOOOO dirty and forbidden) et al, we have had it hammered into us sex is bad and worng. Women should not use sex to get things. I woman who uses sex to get things is less of a person. What horseshit! As long as men are run by their dicks, if you are NOT using sex, I would say you are just plain stupid. Like saying 'real carpenters don't use hammers' or 'a real cook doesn't need a frying pan'. So I think if there is a divine creator, then the human female ciltoris is a CLEAR SIGN, The God and Goddess and the Great All they come from want you to fuck, have pleasure and give pleasure. And to all you 'nice girls' out there, come hang out with me. I will teach you how to be disgustingly 'good girls'. Zip

extrapale -> RE: Number of play partners (6/20/2005 5:20:37 PM)
I'm confused just like you are about all of this, but I won't go into it very much because you'd be reading this for an hour. [;)] Before I was involved in BDSM, I did very little "dating around", even when girls in my high school were doing it. It may seem weird, but back then I had the philosophy of, why bother screwing around with people when I could be having a meaningful relationship with someone that possibly in the future I would consider marrying? Looking back on me then, I feel kind of a surrealness about it all, the fact that during my freshman year of HS, I wouldn't consider messing around with someone who I wouldn't consider marrying. Even now I still retain a small bit of this train of thought, though I put it in another context; I suppose it's the reason why I don't enjoy casual sex. I only want to play with people with whom I have an emotional attraction to- even if it's just infatuation. I've played with people for whom I've had no attraction to other than physical, and it wasn't enjoyable at all. I also prefer playing with people who feel the same as I do on this, because I feel it means then we have a mutual understanding of what the other person wants.

subbiewench -> RE: Number of play partners (6/24/2005 7:22:09 PM)
I want to thank all of you for your responses. It is helpful the hear other opinions on the topic. As for me, I guess that as much as I would like to broaden my experience and the number of those with whom I play, I'm more comfortable with the one at a time thing. Thank you once again to all who responded.

MemphisDsCouple -> RE: Number of play partners (6/25/2005 7:23:38 AM)
Personally, I have just about as much interest in owning a girl who has "played" with (submitted to) every guy in town as I do in marrying a girl who has slept with every guy in town. ymmv quote: ORIGINAL: subbiewench Hello A/all, I have a couple of questions related to the number of play partners with whom people choose to become involved at one time. I know this is a widely varied community and there will be those with greatly differing opinions but I would just like to get an idea of others' thoughts on the issue. I am a straight, female, unowned submissive so what follows appears in those terms but I believe the questions remain pretty much the same for anyone. I have gotten the impression that many people are playing (something beyond just chatting online, talking on the phone or meeting casually to get to know someone better) with several others during the same time period. Not as in a setting such as a dungeon or special event where multiple people are in attendance but more in terms of being with person A even numbered days and person B on the odd ones. Is this in error? In my younger days (vanilla), the few times I tried dating more than one person at a time it ended badly. Even if the relationship was very casual and each was aware that I was seeing someone else. Add those experiences to my natural disinclination to share (due either to shelfishness or insecurity, probably both) and mix in a huge helping of Catholic Guilt and I find I can only deal well with only one relationship (the level of intimacy and presence or absence of intercourse vary with each) at a time. That is why the concept of serial monogamy suits me well. I have only "come out of the closet" and begun to seek others who enjoy the BDSM lifestyle in the last 6 months or so. I find I have many more opportunities to get to know people who are interested in pursuing something than I ever had in the past (a wonderful boost to my ego). I have usually dealt with others in sort of a "first come, first served" basis but now a feast is being laid before me. I don't want to let this new-found popularity go to my head and I do want to be honest with those I get to know. I also don't want to become involved with someone only to end things because someone "better" comes along. I have a feeling it would be easiest to just give in to my desires and play with anyone with whom there is a mutual attraction. However, I don't think I could do that successfully. Not to mention that old guilt thing. How do others deal with such issues? I don't/wouldn't put the same type of requirements on those with whom I may become involved. However, to be perfectly honest, I would much prefer to become involved with those who feel the same way I do, that way much of what is written above becomes mute. Just my $0.02 worth as I try to find myself in terms of this lifestyle. Please feel free to add yours thoughts and feelings. Thank you, subbiewench a.k.a kat

LadyAngelika -> RE: Number of play partners (6/25/2005 9:22:36 AM)
quote: Personally, I have just about as much interest in owning a girl who has "played" with (submitted to) every guy in town as I do in marrying a girl who has slept with every guy in town. ymmv And the problem with that is....? As long as she had fun and she did it because she wanted to and not because she felt she had to... There is no correlation between degree of sexual activity and a person's worth. I am amazed how so many people try to make one. Perhaps it's fear of finding themselves ranked as average amongst all the lovers. - LA

MemphisDsCouple -> RE: Number of play partners (6/25/2005 1:52:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika As long as she had fun and she did it because she wanted to and not because she felt she had to... Not everyone sees it that way. For example: quote: ORIGINAL: subbiewench In my younger days (vanilla), the few times I tried dating more than one person at a time it ended badly. Even if the relationship was very casual and each was aware that I was seeing someone else. And: quote: ORIGINAL: subbiewench Add those experiences to my natural disinclination to share And: quote: ORIGINAL: subbiewench That is why the concept of serial monogamy suits me well. And then: quote: ORIGINAL: subbiewench However, to be perfectly honest, I would much prefer to become involved with those who feel the same way I do, that way much of what is written above becomes mute. Then: quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: Personally, I have just about as much interest in owning a girl who has "played" with (submitted to) every guy in town as I do in marrying a girl who has slept with every guy in town. ymmv And the problem with that is....? LA: Just because you don't understand this concept, it does not give you leave to write: quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Perhaps it's fear of finding themselves ranked as average amongst all the lovers. Rather than reason, you try to disparage. Rather than try to understand, you cast stones. I suggest you try to elevate the level of discussion, rather than lowering it. To the OP: I encourage you to not fall into the trap of swinging through "play". I think you will end up being much happier in the long run and finding a much better person for a long term relationship if you follow the gut instinct you described. Of course, ymmv and each to his or her own.

Faramir -> RE: Number of play partners (6/25/2005 4:52:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: Personally, I have just about as much interest in owning a girl who has "played" with (submitted to) every guy in town as I do in marrying a girl who has slept with every guy in town. ymmv And the problem with that is....? As long as she had fun and she did it because she wanted to and not because she felt she had to... There is no correlation between degree of sexual activity and a person's worth. I am amazed how so many people try to make one. Perhaps it's fear of finding themselves ranked as average amongst all the lovers. - LA There is no sense or purpsoe in superimposing your values on someone else. If that's the way MDsC feels - that's the way they feel. You can't criticise choices that reflect their values because they're values based. Getting worked up over someone else's choices is pointless, and demonstrates a real lack of humility. Personally - I don't play. The idea of "playing" is completely alien to me - this is intimacy for me. But as strongly as I feel about this for me - I don't mistake my values for "truth." If other people want to play - good for them. Doesn't work for me, works for them - fabulous on both sides.

dechala -> RE: Number of play partners (6/25/2005 5:49:23 PM)
i've never really been able to "play" causally.Especially with the D/s dynamic involved.i give all that i am to Him, my body,my heart, my soul,everything, and to me that's not "playing",that's the most personal thing there is.Oh i've tried it before,just to see if i could do it but it's not right for me,and it never will be.i have to have serious feelings of intimacy before i can "play" perse.Even back in my vanilla dating days,or just dating in general, i've always only been interested in one person at a time.Just the crazy way i'm wired.But i know many who do play casually and it works well for them so i don't knock 'em [:)]

LadyAngelika -> RE: Number of play partners (6/26/2005 8:50:11 AM)
quote: LA: Just because you don't understand this concept, it does not give you leave to write: quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Perhaps it's fear of finding themselves ranked as average amongst all the lovers. Rather than reason, you try to disparage. Rather than try to understand, you cast stones. I suggest you try to elevate the level of discussion, rather than lowering it. Nope. I was simply trying to post an alternative point of view. I believe in fact, that opens up discussion and therefore elevates it. Now you picking on me in such a way... that in fact would be lowering it. But in all fairness to you, I can see how many people would be offended by my extreme views. Not everyone is willing to accept a woman taking charge of her sexuality. So why don't you show me just how mature you can be and take my comment for what it was, an opinion and move on without the personal attacks. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Number of play partners (6/26/2005 8:53:32 AM)
quote: There is no sense or purpsoe in superimposing your values on someone else. If that's the way MDsC feels - that's the way they feel. You can't criticise choices that reflect their values because they're values based. Getting worked up over someone else's choices is pointless, and demonstrates a real lack of humility. Wow. Amazing that because I present another opinion, everyone thinks I'm trying to squash theirs. And how sweet of you, Faramir, to come to MDsC's rescue! Must be the new Vicieuse Exquise (Exquisitely Vicious) tagline getting you all on the defensive. Relax boys. Your opinion is ok. My opinion is ok. Now it's lovely Sunday. Let's all go out and play ;) - LA

Faramir -> RE: Number of play partners (6/26/2005 10:35:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: There is no sense or purpsoe in superimposing your values on someone else. If that's the way MDsC feels - that's the way they feel. You can't criticise choices that reflect their values because they're values based. Getting worked up over someone else's choices is pointless, and demonstrates a real lack of humility. Wow. Amazing that because I present another opinion, everyone thinks I'm trying to squash theirs. And how sweet of you, Faramir, to come to MDsC's rescue! - LA When you added this perjoative statement, "Perhaps it's fear of finding themselves ranked as average amongst all the lovers," in addrssing another person's value based choice you stopped expressing our opinion and started denigrating someone else's values. Maybe that was a simple mistake on your part, maybe it was a slip - sure, we all are sloppy or a bit thoughtless in our writing from time to time. Happens to everyone. However, given that you did say it, start acting like a big girl and own up. Have a great day sweetie :)

LadyAngelika -> RE: Number of play partners (6/26/2005 10:49:48 AM)
Nope. It was not an oversight, nor was it sloppiness. It was an intentional statement but it was not a slight. Why do you all have to feel targeted? It is true that many people do not want to sleep with someone who has been very sexually active because they are afraid that they will be ranked as average. I have had people admit this to me. And thank you for the great day blessing. So far, it's been a trip! - LA

EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Number of play partners (6/28/2005 7:35:08 AM)
Some people just don't value active sluts, I accepted that a long time ago. Some people even look down on me for being an active slut. But for me it's like saying I wouldn't be happy in a relationship with someone who didn't want to use condoms. I'm not saying the person is less than someone who uses condoms, I just know we are not going to be a good fit. Saying that someone who doesn't use condoms is not someone who works for me is understanding your own perspective and being aware of how you work. To say instead that a person who doesn't use condoms is worth less than someone who uses condoms however, is definitely a ridiculous value judgement.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125