RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (Full Version)

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



Message

Constrictor1 -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 12:48:09 PM)

Ialdaboath,
I am attracted to females. Until you get to someone who is at the point that is described as clincally or morbidly obese I can be attracted. In my past I have been with every height from 4' 11" to 6' 4". And every weight from 93 pounds to 280 pounds. I will tailor my physical expectations to the person. I have never met a Barbie gymnast yet. I find that the mental aspects of serving,pleasing, and surrendring to another to be far more of a turn on than most anything else.
Oh yeah, I like big boobs! not a requirement, just stating a shallow self-centered preference.

Constrictor1



subtee -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 12:53:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

1. "I have this neat idea for a suspension bondage scene. You'll need to be able to arch your back so your butt touches your shoulders, and you'll need to be suspended by *this rope* without breaking it."


Cirque de Soleil?



DominantJenny -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 12:56:44 PM)

I think the key here is preferences vs. requirements. A preference is just that...I might prefer a guy who is, say, larger than I am (since that makes me feel all small and dainty), but I'm not requiring it; if I meet a guy who is great for me who happens to NOT be larger than me, I'm not gonna turn him down solely over that difference.
In my case, that's precisely what happened. My spouse/slave is a very average sized guy and I'm a BBW. He still manages sometimes to make me feel small and dainty, don't ask me how! (It helps that he's much, much stronger than I am. :P)



Ialdabaoth -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 1:01:52 PM)

quote:

Cirque de Soleil?


Oh, hell yeah. ;)

My ex was a bondage athlete.

Also, as an anecdote: when my ex and I started dating, she was 5'1" and 160 lbs - which is actually quite a bit outside of my range. Two years later, she was 110 lbs, and very muscular - all without either of us making an effort to 'conform her to my ideal'. I loved her at every weight, but our activities happened to require a level of exercise that produced a slimmer frame.

So, 1) I do date somewhat outside my preference, 2) i'm well aware that they don't preclude any kind of physical performance (although they do affect it), and 3) I'm aware that these are all dynamic traits.



Kana -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 1:02:38 PM)

I like what I like
My tastes are my tastes
they reflect my personal preferences
sexual, attraction, or otherwise
Does that make me shallow
hmmm
I can't really say that I care if it does
Some people like big folk, some people like small folks, most women I know prefer men taller than them
fuck it
call it what you want to
when I give a damn what someone else thinks
I will ask them.
When I let others opinions and  perspectives
dictate how I feel about myself
I have a much bigger problem than being thought of as shallow




lemmebeYourMine -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 1:09:08 PM)

lol, thanks for making my point, Kana.

It shouldn't ever be about what other people think...




spinninsweetness -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 1:15:19 PM)

My tastes, in friends or partners, is more to do with sense of humour rather than physical wants. Yes if they were taller than me thats good, but at 5'2 thats not difficult to find.

I'm (hate this term) a BBW but I'm 25, I spend almost 10 hours a day on my feet for work, I walk several miles a day and if need be can get my legs above my head. As long as you dont mind the oooof noises!

I would hate hate a mercy fuck, or someone who wanted to tick a box- yes, I've done a fatty, that kind of thing. I'm the lower end of the ego, so I'd mistrust a really handsome or beautiful Dom/me. Does that make me shallow? I judge on apearence, but the other way!




Missokyst -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 1:22:23 PM)

I think you have every right to want what you want.  I can totally relate to your thoughts below.  I am not one of those lithe tiny anorexic girls but until I was 42 and ripped a muscle in my back I could still do backflips and rollovers.  After that accident, those days are gone.  As for preferences to size and strength, I never go out with shorter skinny guys.  They do not appeal to me at all if I believe I can pick them up and toss them over the railing.  It isn't that I am sexually insecure with that type because of their percieved fitness.. they just don't appeal to me.
We all have our tastes.  Who cares if someone you don't know believes it to be shallow?
Kyst
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

Also realize that when I say "easier to do" I'm not just talking about physically easier. For example, I find it much psychologically easier to be physically dominant with tiny, anorexic girls. It's part of my childhood socialization; I equate size with strength, and tend to be sexually insecure around people who are larger than me. (I'm still working on that.)



Evility -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 3:06:48 PM)

I wouldn't call him shallow if a slender, young and fit submissive wasn't required for the things he liked to do and he still preferred slender, young and fit submissives. This is the second thread I've read today tossing the word "shallow" around. I don't get it. Yes, someone may have very superficial preferences but that's their choice. Usually the only people who complain about it are those who cannot meet that criteria.



DiurnalVampire -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 3:11:36 PM)

This would mean that the young and inflexible, the young and arthritic (like me), the young and heavy set... are also discrimintated against?
Preferences for fantasy bondage scenes are not unrealistic... they are fantasy scenes anyway. I have a strong preference for effeminate younger men. Does that mean Id not look at a more masculine male no. It does, however mean I am less likely to lok at one than I am a femenine male. I am not attracted to someone older than me.
I am also not attracted to someone dominant... regardless of their physical attributes.
Not unrealistic, just preferetial.

DV



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 3:55:26 PM)

Well the good news is that it doesn't matter what you say- if you put a physical preference down, you'll get told you're a shallow loser for it.

This will be a lot worse though the more you desire the general envious form considered "shallow."

However, your preferences are yours.  As long as you own the consequences, go for whatever you want.  I have a total double standard when it comes to physical attraction myself, never let it stop me.



greyangelus -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 4:00:46 PM)

Someone on here said it better.  But it's only shallow if that's the ONLY reason you keep them in your life, despite a million and one other things that are completely incompatible with what you want.



DesFIP -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 6:20:25 PM)

It's your sexual insecurities that worry me a lot more than your preferences per se. So what happens if she has an accident, is stuck in a wheel chair for six months and gains 50 pounds? Going to dump her because you aren't capable of dominating her, even though she's still just as submissive and caring? If she breaks her leg skiing and can't touch her butt to her head for six weeks? Is it dump time?

If the only reason you're getting together with them is physical stuff, then you aren't into a relationship. You're tennis partners basically. So stop saying you want to dominate a submissive female, and be honest about just wanting hot play.



Leatherist -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 6:24:12 PM)

It's definitely easier to do shibari suspension with someone who is not 500 pounds, and shaped like a cue ball.



lizcgirl -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 6:39:32 PM)

Every one is attracted to a certain 'type' for different reasons. Personally, I am not a tiny girl, I'm not extremely large either, but I am thicker than most and have legs like a soccer player. lol. So my personal preference is I don't want a guy who I could break with my thigh. I agree with the statement you made about it being mental- I just can't see being dominated by a man smaller and shorter than me that I KNOW I could beat in a fight. It might not be PC, but I never claimed to be. I am attracted to attitude, honesty, eyes, smile, and tattoos. Not exactly a normal list of what people think is hot, but it works for me. I DO believe that you can love some one and that will MAKE them more attractive to you, but there has to be some kind of intial attraction for it to work. Now listing your personal preferences like a job application might offend people because of how it can be presented. And you run the very real risk of finding the perfect physical match and having NOTHING in common and dismissing the perfect soul match because of a few pounds. I don't think it makes you shallow, but I think if you limit your search to only those that meet your ideal physical list, you have a very good chance of failing. But what can you do? Every one is attracted to some one for whatever reasons, whether they voice it publically or not.  



HandSolo -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 6:56:38 PM)

My preferences are legitimate. All those women who keep rejecting me are shallow.



DMFParadox -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 7:06:14 PM)

Can you enlighten me on what activities got your girl from 150 to a 110 lbd. athelete in 2 years?  Sorry to hear that ended, bro; sounds like that would be a symptom of a deep and caring relationship, on both parts.

No, physicality is not shallow.  We are our bodies, Christian dualism be damned (pun intended.)  It's never shallow, and by averting our eyes we tend to blind ourselves to what REALLY matters... and thus our evaluations of what is important about our bodies and sexuality become shallow.

Not that I'm a nudist per se, but when I stand on a nude beach I notice something.  The 'ugly' people are less ugly, and the 'pretty' girls are less pretty... and beaty stops being about still frames and form, becomes more about action. 

But it's also clear that healthy and well-proportioned counts. 

Plus, it's the girls I can pick up easily that I keep around.  There's just something about that... mm.  And cute butts, cute tits, those do count.  But not the way they are in magazines; more, the way they are playing ball or splashing in a pool.



katie978 -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 7:25:35 PM)

    I'm not sure if I'd classify that as shallow, though I'd be wary of dating anyone who has strict physical requirements for a girl. Even if you were only looking for my exact physical characteristics, I couldn't guarantee I'd stay that way forever. I'd also be worried about starting a relationship with someone with such rigorous physical standards-If I hurt myself playing your bondage games, would you replace me?



SirMIkeSD -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 7:42:00 PM)

While I have my preferences like everyone else, some of best play I have had has been with men who are not really my type but we had a connection.  For me it's the connection, not the type.

Mike




Ialdabaoth -> RE: Legitimate vs. shallow physical requirements (5/5/2008 10:33:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

Can you enlighten me on what activities got your girl from 150 to a 110 lbd. athelete in 2 years?


1. Walking five miles a day, fifteen each on Fridays and Saturdays (this is besides hiking).
2. Regular, strenuous yoga and contortion exercises (about half an hour a day)
3. Regular, 2-hour-long slow sex (note: doing it *slowly* actually burns MORE calories)
4. Hiking twice a month
5. Regular strenuous predicament bondage scenes, at least 4 per week, each lasting half an hour or more - usually involving a lot of partial-bondage and static muscle tension.
6. Cooking for her, instead of letting her eat fast food.

That pretty much did it. 1 and 6 are key; everything else is secondary. And they work best if you do them with her.






Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125