RE: Straight Woman Blues

RE: Straight Woman Blues (Full Version)

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

Message

KatyLied -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/26/2005 12:51:22 PM)
quote: Ever eat chocolate covered pretzels? Good girl!

justheather -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/26/2005 12:57:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied quote: Ever eat chocolate covered pretzels? Good girl! katy you make me smile.

cloudboy -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/31/2005 9:57:34 PM)
Your post reminds me of one of my favorite songs: DIANA KRALL LYRICS "I'll String Along With You" You may not be an angel Cause angels are so few But until the day that one comes along I'll string along with you I looking for an angel To sing my love song to And until the day that one comes along I'll sing my song to you For every little fault that you have Say I've got three or four The human little faults you do have Just make me love you more You may not be an angel But still I'm sure you'll do So until the day that one comes along I'll string along with you

ImpGrrl -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (1/1/2006 11:13:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper ^laughs^. One of life's mysteries is why men would find two women together exciting, but women do not want to see two men together (as a rule). Many women do find it exciting. It's not as loudly touted as the men do, but it's there.

ImpGrrl -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (1/1/2006 11:29:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sunshine119 I guess you have to be exceptional to be able to be in a poly relationship. No, you just have to be poly. quote: But, for me, the idea of women with women is a big turn off. I'm not putting anyone down here. It's just me that is extremely heterosexual. I'm not sure why heterosexuality and non-monogamy are being presented as mutually exclusive? It's possible to be poly and very het.

ehlovindom -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (1/1/2006 12:23:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper i Monogamy is not negotiable with me, but i do not want a Man to feel He's been chained to the relationship; i want a Man who places as much emphasis on monogamy as i do. Not One who compromises what He really wanted to have me, but One who shares my vision of how wonderful life can be. candystripper Just keep on looking, there are a few of us out here!

slavedesires -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (1/1/2006 5:30:26 PM)
quote: but One who shares my vision of how wonderful life can be. oh how to put this.... aside from ALL sexual references..... i would restate this, based on my belief of D/s: ...but One whose vision i share of how wonderful life is becasue i please Him and in doing so find the greatest pleasure and joy.

Petruchio -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (1/1/2006 7:55:13 PM)
quote: Sometimes i see a profile and it's very appealing; then i get to the part where He discusses what He wants; and so often He wants a bisexual or "bicurious" woman; and i feel sad. Are straight women just not exciting? Is monogamy just never enough? i have a clear vision of a life or peace and joy with my One; but apparently few men are interested in that vision. candy, I've been threre, done that, but I actually find bi scenes a turn-off now. The irony is that it's so often a question that women have raised with me– asking if I'd like to arrange a bi scene. How strange the human psyche.

Sunshine119 -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (1/1/2006 9:54:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ehlovindom quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper i Monogamy is not negotiable with me, but i do not want a Man to feel He's been chained to the relationship; i want a Man who places as much emphasis on monogamy as i do. Not One who compromises what He really wanted to have me, but One who shares my vision of how wonderful life can be. candystripper Just keep on looking, there are a few of us out here! Since this thread continues on and on, I've flipped through countless profiles of Doms and submissives, and much to my surprise, it seems like there are many, many Dominants, and submissives as well, who all are looking for monogamous relationships. So don't worry ehlovindom, you're not alone......and neither is Candy, or me.

JohnWarren -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (1/2/2006 11:01:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ImpGrrl quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper laughs^. One of life's mysteries is why men would find two women together exciting, but women do not want to see two men together (as a rule).[/font][/size][/color] Many women do find it exciting. It's not as loudly touted as the men do, but it's there. It's quite common. In fact, it's one of the most commonly requested scenes when Libby and I are approached by groups of women, dominant or submissive. Usually, we do something along the "wrestling scene" from Exit to Eden (with condoms) another tableau that is repeatedly requested is "older man introducing terrified young man." Fortunately, we have a great "terrified young man" since he can act so well.

cloudboy -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (2/24/2006 5:09:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper The "problem" is the anger and acting out by various members that has been designed to cause me pain. For example, John Warren and KoM choosing to end friendships with me -- and to do so very publically. candystripper They clearly were not your friends if indeed your simple posting about what you believe for yourself caused them to pack up and leave. I'm honored to report being blocked by one. Stay to true to yourself, whatever you do, don't post worrying about losing friends. If anything, your posting will expose who your friends actually are.

JohnWarren -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (2/24/2006 5:25:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shayna quote: i was not referring to people's opinions. i was referring to both JohnWarren and KoM making a public display of ending our friendships and placing me on block. i mean, Lordy, i did not burn the BDSM flag. i just suggested -- ok, insisted -- that monogamy is necesssary for me to bond with a Man, and that there will be no 3rd parties -- no bisexual encounters -- in my life. i gave ample respect to the life choices of others. O, and i used that blasted phrase, "High Monogamy" which everyone seems to have jumped to conclusions about; although what it means i have explained at least twice that i can recall. Yes, we completely understand that you are interested in a MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH NO INTIMATE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER WOMAN. You've only said it ten billion times. And many posters said ten billion times that IT'S OK. Your first thread about straight woman blues was looking for others to sympathize with you. It IS possible that some women don't sympathize with you. So what. Your second thread requested a discussion of monogamy. Many posters gave you their opinions on that topic. So what's the problem? How can you feel so victimized by people posting their opinions, no matter what they are? That is a reaction you choose to have; not one others' have forced upon you. I still don't understand this reaction. She asked me to put her on ignore and I did. Of course, her subsequent behavior has convinced me that it may have been a wise move. If the blocking was "public" it was because she started attacking me after I'd acceded to her wishes. It could have been relatively private if she had left it at making the request to "put me in a corner."

jamesthehumanrug -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (2/24/2006 5:38:24 PM)
GREETINGS CLOUDY I AM SORRY YOU LOST AN S AND M CONNECTION SOMETHING IN TITLES MUST HAVE GONE WRONG EGOS GET IRREVERSABLY OFFENDED,AND,IMAGE IS EVERYTHING NOT WHAT YOU ARE ,BUT ,WHO YOU ARE TO THAT PERSON IS USUALLY WHY YOU ARE TOGETHER I HATE THE WORD LIMITS, BUT SOME LINE MUST HAVE BEEN CROSSED,ALTHO I ,ONLY HAVE THIS POST TO GO BY ,WITHOUT MUCH SPECIFIC INFO AGAIN; I AM so SORRY;you must be sad; YOU LOST A PERSON,or persons , THAT were PART OF YOU, IN S AND M/and,creatively,too.... HOPEFULLY BECAUSE WE RELATE THRU S AND M; THE OTHERS in same circles ARE HAVING ,TO remain SOPHISTICATED ENUFF, TO HAVE, TO SMILE, when and if you meet again somewhere,AND, can always REUNITE, AT A LATTER TIME WITH YOU no consolation now....however, TO NOT SMILE AND DO OTHERWISE ISNT REALLY SOPHISTICATED ,esp.AMOUNG, S AND M ,unbreakable CIRCLES; WE NEVER BURN OUR intimate-BRIDGES, AND CAN ALWAYS COME BACK IN THE IDEAL SENSE.

candystripper -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (2/24/2006 10:47:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren quote: ORIGINAL: Shayna quote: i was not referring to people's opinions. i was referring to both JohnWarren and KoM making a public display of ending our friendships and placing me on block. i mean, Lordy, i did not burn the BDSM flag. i just suggested -- ok, insisted -- that monogamy is necesssary for me to bond with a Man, and that there will be no 3rd parties -- no bisexual encounters -- in my life. i gave ample respect to the life choices of others. O, and i used that blasted phrase, "High Monogamy" which everyone seems to have jumped to conclusions about; although what it means i have explained at least twice that i can recall. Yes, we completely understand that you are interested in a MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH NO INTIMATE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER WOMAN. You've only said it ten billion times. And many posters said ten billion times that IT'S OK. Your first thread about straight woman blues was looking for others to sympathize with you. It IS possible that some women don't sympathize with you. So what. Your second thread requested a discussion of monogamy. Many posters gave you their opinions on that topic. So what's the problem? How can you feel so victimized by people posting their opinions, no matter what they are? That is a reaction you choose to have; not one others' have forced upon you. I still don't understand this reaction. She asked me to put her on ignore and I did. Of course, her subsequent behavior has convinced me that it may have been a wise move. If the blocking was "public" it was because she started attacking me after I'd acceded to her wishes. It could have been relatively private if she had left it at making the request to "put me in a corner." quote: I still don't understand this reaction. She asked me to put her on ignore and I did. Of course, her subsequent behavior has convinced me that it may have been a wise move. If the blocking was "public" it was because she started attacking me after I'd acceded to her wishes. It could have been relatively private if she had left it at making the request to "put me in a corner." JohnWarren i am saddened that You feel i disrespected You in a post...please point out how i offended You. i assure You, it was not intentional. i have asked to be taken off block without success. You initially misunderstood me, as i was teasing in asking for "corner time" and never intended to ask to be blocked. However, i can understand the confusion. i just wish things would return to normal between us. candystripper

candystripper -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (2/24/2006 10:54:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper The "problem" is the anger and acting out by various members that has been designed to cause me pain. For example, John Warren and KoM choosing to end friendships with me -- and to do so very publically. candystripper They clearly were not your friends if indeed your simple posting about what you believe for yourself caused them to pack up and leave. I'm honored to report being blocked by one. Stay to true to yourself, whatever you do, don't post worrying about losing friends. If anything, your posting will expose who your friends actually are. cloudboy i find it hard to examine a phrase from all angles, predicting all reactions. "Staright Woman Blues" was innocous to me; just another country heard from. To many, it was a lament, a whine, about the people who choose other relationships. This shocked me, and i tried to explain, but that generally does not work. i really don't know what lies beneath all the anger that was expressed, at the idea or at me. Some people may have felt i lacked compassion and mutual respect, which saddens me. There did seem to be more going on though. candystripper

candystripper -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (2/24/2006 11:07:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sensualips The third possibility is that you are at some level well aware of what you are doing but enjoy the victim role i should have held my tongue about LA's past announcements; it is for her to decide how to live. However, no, the "victim" was only the rational dialogue. i do not seek nor enjoy being treated with pity; i find it demeaning. This insult, was it tit for tat? By the way, why is this thread up again? candystripper

SimplyV -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (2/24/2006 11:24:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper Sometimes i see a profile and it's very appealing; then i get to the part where He discusses what He wants; and so often He wants a bisexual or "bicurious" woman; and i feel sad. Are straight women just not exciting? Is monogamy just never enough? i have a clear vision of a life or peace and joy with my One; but apparently few men are interested in that vision. Don't misunderstand; i get mail; but often when i actually IM with Him -- He asks "would you?' and the answer is "no f*king way"; and we come to an end. Sigh*. Am i suffering alone? candystripper As a sub, I had to deal with that too. I am straight, very straight. And I've had those conversations.. Half of them just wanted to know out of curiousity.. ya know.. limit investigation.. and some were actually demanding bi-sexual or bi-curious women. There are Doms who want a straight woman sub. Don't give up hope.

Vancouver_cinful -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (2/24/2006 11:56:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper My gay friends never accepted "fag hag" and so i don't use it. candystripper When I first began living in the gay ghetto here in Vancouver, the term fag-hag was still mainly derogatory, as was fag itself, and queer. This was late 70's, early 80's. I didn't like the term fag-hag back then, although many considered me one. It's common for groups to gain some power back into their lives by adopting these derogatory terms and making them into badges of honour. Fag, Queer, Fag-Hag, Fag-Magnet, Perv, Slut...All proud titles now among the sex-positive people in my life. Times and attitudes have sure changed. Cin <~ proud Slut and Fag-Magnet (who, oddly enough isn't turned on by watching two men together).

perverseangelic -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (2/25/2006 9:27:44 AM)
I didn't realize how old this thread was when I repplied. I just looked at the day (24) and not the month. Sorry about that. quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper By it's nature, a relationship with a Dom or Master who desired a bisexual woman would not be monogamous...thus, i could not find peace, never mind flourish, in such a setting. Then there's the expectation that i'd be sexual with a woman. This i cannot do, will never be able to do; this is not an aspect of my sexuality that is "in flux". So to accept a collar from such a Man would ensure He could not please me, and i could not please Him. i try to avoid self-defeating behavior. I really really dislike this assumption. Because it's false. I can think of some big, very valid exceptions that I've run into with others-- Perhaps the person in question want a woman who is comfortable TALKING about being sexual with women. Or who is aroused -thinking- about being sexual with women. Perhaps he wants to know that the -idea- of women turns his girl on, so he can dangle it. As in "Oh, I could loan you to her, you'd like that wouldn't you you little slut?" Call it a mind fuck if you want, but this type of play appeals to MANY who want nothing more than a totally monogamous relationship. There is the knowledge that they will never include someone else, but because he knows it turns her on, it turns him on to play with it. Just like it might turn someone on to threaten to cut someone, even if knife play is a limit. For some, it holds much less of an appeal if there isn't an attraction there somewhere. That is, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun if the woman in question were straight. Being interested in women as well as men, and wanting a woman who is itnerested in women does NOT mean that one will be having sex with other women. It just means that there's sexual attraction there, just as there's sexual attraction to men. My partner and I are not monogamous by your definition, but for a while we were, at his behest. It still got him hot to hear abuot the girls I found hot, and what I'd do to them. Even though at the point we knew we weren't gonna include someone else. Seeking out bisexual women simply means the man in question has some affinity for bisexual/omnisexual women. NOT that he is gonna require sex with other women. -that- depends on the individual. It seems that it'd be better to talk to the individual in question, before assuming that wanting bisexuals means wanting a poly relationship.

RiotGirl -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (2/25/2006 9:43:10 AM)
quote: Sometimes i see a profile and it's very appealing; then i get to the part where He discusses what He wants; and so often He wants a bisexual or "bicurious" woman; and i feel sad. Are straight women just not exciting? Is monogamy just never enough? i have a clear vision of a life or peace and joy with my One; but apparently few men are interested in that vision. Don't misunderstand; i get mail; but often when i actually IM with Him -- He asks "would you?' and the answer is "no f*king way"; and we come to an end. Sigh*. Am i suffering alone? candystripper yeah i agree its really sad.. and i've run across what you're talking about alot.. sucks dont it? Ah well.. atleast they're ARE men our there that ARE seeking what you are seeking and what i once was seeking LOL. Its just like a needle in a haystack

Page: << < prev 11 12 13 [14] 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875