RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge?

RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

cloudboy -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (8/2/2007 5:32:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo That has not been my experience with Fox or with a few others. We started as Ds, that is our foundation, but I think we are realistic in what that can and should entail in the lives of consenting adults. The question is, was the D/S truly foundational for you, or was it contributing to your personal connection, solidifying it? My take is that if you were somehow personally incompatible, BDSM would not overcome that shortcomming, even if it gave you a fast, hot start in your relationship. Hence my POV is that one should focus foremost on personal connections (intellectual, spiritual, artistic, values, social-political, temperment, etc.) and secondly on sex and BDSM. I don't think the two are exclusive in the courtship process, but Aakasha's point is that without the personal connection, the BDSM pitch rings hollow.

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (8/2/2007 5:44:54 PM)
hey, i have a challenge for the Mistresses here...catch me if You can...LOL

SDFemDom4cuck -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (8/2/2007 5:49:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelOfGeorgia hey, i have a challenge for the Mistresses here...catch me if You can...LOL Pass. I prefer a submissive with a bit of self esteem, a sense of self although I'm sure there's someone out there for you.

AAkasha -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (8/2/2007 5:56:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo That has not been my experience with Fox or with a few others. We started as Ds, that is our foundation, but I think we are realistic in what that can and should entail in the lives of consenting adults. The question is, was the D/S truly foundational for you, or was it contributing to your personal connection, solidifying it? My take is that if you were somehow personally incompatible, BDSM would not overcome that shortcomming, even if it gave you a fast, hot start in your relationship. Hence my POV is that one should focus foremost on personal connections (intellectual, spiritual, artistic, values, social-political, temperment, etc.) and secondly on sex and BDSM. I don't think the two are exclusive in the courtship process, but Aakasha's point is that without the personal connection, the BDSM pitch rings hollow. If I ever had my own bdsm event or munch, I'd entertain the idea of a new set of rules. The rules would be that there was no bdsm protocol allowed for the first 1/2 of the event and you were not allowed to tell people your orientation. No one was allowed to talk about BDSM. Maybe there would be a fun penalty if you did (ladies, think of the silly shower game we play at baby or bridal showers when you cannot say a word, and when you do, someone gets to "take" your bobby pin - whoever has the most, wins). This would force people to get to know each other on a totally different level with no games, roles, rules or weirdness. Of course, I am sure many would be using their own radar to determine who was dominant or submissive or switchy. The fun would be later when you found out someone you thought for SURE was one orientation and they were not. But best of all would be forcing people to talk about their hobbies, dreams, careers, current events, etc. Akasha

SDFemDom4cuck -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (8/2/2007 5:58:39 PM)
cloud.. quote: Hence my POV is that one should focus foremost on personal connections (intellectual, spiritual, artistic, values, social-political, temperment, etc.) and secondly on sex and BDSM. I don't think the two are exclusive in the courtship process, but Aakasha's point is that without the personal connection, the BDSM pitch rings hollow. I would have to agree with that as well. Although not everything has to be in complete alignment. It's prefectly ok to agree to disagree. The ability to have something more than kink being the glue that holds it all together is what I've always found to be the most successful in lasting relationships. Kink isn't going to be occuring 24/7.I find that it's rather nice to be able to actually hold an intellectual discourse about other subjects over dinner. Even if there isn't the ability to hold views from the same side; sometimes that passionate debate makes for a nice little increase in the pulse rate. I'm far more intrigued by someone that desires to know who I am and asks questions that wonder what I'm passionate about. I tend to get a bit bored with conversations that seem to always lead back to kink discussions. Flirtatious banter, wit, and innuendo are fine. When they continue to find a way to return every subject back to their kinks...well, I tend to wonder if that's the only facet of their personality. Personally, I'm far more than the sum of my proclivities.

SDFemDom4cuck -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (8/2/2007 6:04:52 PM)
Aakasha, I've done exactly that at dinner parties. No Sirs or Ma'ams, no eye contact restrictions; everyone had to comport themselves as they would within everyday life rather than lifestyle. There was always more than a few laughs and head shakes when each person would introduce themselves again after dessert and coffee and state their orientation. It definitely made for some interesting discoveries about other people that we might not have found out in any other situation.

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (8/2/2007 6:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SDFemDom4cuck quote: ORIGINAL: michaelOfGeorgia hey, i have a challenge for the Mistresses here...catch me if You can...LOL Pass. I prefer a submissive with a bit of self esteem, a sense of self although I'm sure there's someone out there for you. well, lately, since i've enacted the "i don't care what people think of me anymore" attitude and let my playful (bratty) side loose...i would say my self esteem has improved substantially.

LadyClaudiaVan -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (8/2/2007 6:44:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea There is room for interpretation for what it means to be easy or a challenge. What we have in play here is overcomplication. What Akasha is trying to say (IMO) is that she wants an interesting man. Naturally, being submissive doesn't guarantee that, and in many instances its an encumbrance. The truth is that BDSM is not foundational to a good, LTR. Just as you can't build a LTR on sex, you can't build it on BDSM either. BDSM and sex are important concerns, truly, but they are secondary. To overly lead with either in the courtship process is a mistake. I don't think it's that complicated now that I look back at it. I said: "What he was getting at is that they (subs) were ready and willing to serve and just looking for someone (sometimes, looking for ANYONE) to serve, vs. someone who was not interested in finding someone to serve, but found themselves unable to resist serving once the connection was there." Too many subs are looking to serve as quickly and as easily as possible, and often without knowing much about a woman at all. The woman is a means to and end (he wants to get his fetish serviced). Not enough submissives take the approach to court and get to know a woman completely on a vanilla platform, never bring up kink, let her control the pace, and let her uncover his fetishes at her pace -- this is the way it would work with a vanilla guy, simply because he has no kinky agenda. She has to find out, from the start, if/how/when he might have some willingness to explore this sexuality -- or, if he perhaps was kinky but it did not show on the surface. Akasha Akasha, You and cloudboy seem to be saying similar things,here's why. The title should be called "Bottom" men not being a challenge, rather than "submissive" men not being a challenge. There is a huge difference between the intentions of a bottom man and the intentions of a submissive man. The bottom man wants only play and usually he does not care where or how he gets it -which is what you mean when you say he's not being a challenge. But a man who wants to submit to a woman will, as you also stated, take the time to court her and take the time to get to know her as a woman and also, as cloubboy stated, take the time build the foundation of the relationship based on who she is as a woman before her ways and traits as an alfa female (although I believe they [her/alpha] go hand and hand, I'm mainly talking about who she is aside from her dominate traits, for ex. her intelligence, spirit, morals, etc). So, I think the submissive man is very similar to the vanilla man if we are talking about seeking a long-term relationship with a dominant (or not) woman and he's not really an easy, unchallenging man.

undergroundsea -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (8/2/2007 8:26:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea There is room for interpretation for what it means to be easy or a challenge. What we have in play here is overcomplication. What Akasha is trying to say (IMO) is that she wants an interesting man. Naturally, being submissive doesn't guarantee that, and in many instances its an encumbrance. In my opinion, explaining the context of one's post, or explaining what context one has assumed in a response to another post is clarification and not overcomplication. If you feel that to assume the context I did is an overcomplication, I disagree. I think there is plenty in the OPs posts in this thread as well pattern of statements and philosophy conveyed in the past to allow the context I used. If you would like to see specifics, I will gladly elaborate and quote examples. quote: The truth is that BDSM is not foundational to a good, LTR. Just as you can't build a LTR on sex, you can't build it on BDSM either. BDSM and sex are important concerns, truly, but they are secondary. To overly lead with either in the courtship process is a mistake. While BDSM alone (without regard to interpersonal compatibility) will not make for a good LTR (by LTR I assume you mean a romantic LTR), I think it is fundamental to the LTR if it is essential to the expression of sexuality and affection of one or each involved. I don't think you can lead with it but I don't think it's something you come to after all else is figured out. I see it as not the only ingredient in a courtship but certainly one key ingredient. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (8/2/2007 8:50:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy There is demographic-induced desperation. While it shouldn't excuse any and all behavior, I can't fault them all the time either. Demographic-induced desperation! I like that term and I hope you don't mind if I borrow it ;-) I began to write ideas about this interpretation at a prior sitting but was unable to complete it. I think demographic-induced desperation and demographic-induced attraction are indeed relevant to this discussion. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Are subs not enough of a challenge? (8/2/2007 8:58:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha I see your point, but not sure how it relates, since in this case the femdom is dictating how she wants to be approached. I think the point is that there is a variety of relationship goals and for some people--men and women--a D/s centric approach is fine and, in fact, wanted. Cheers, Sea

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.100586E-02