RE: Straight Woman Blues (Full Version)

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



Message

Wildfleurs -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 4:48:09 PM)

quote:


i have never met a bisexual person in real life (as far as i know) so i don't really know what to compare it to. Yes, monogamy between straight people means "forsaking all others" but at least it holds the promise that they can fire off one anothers' rockets.


I consider forsaking all others a pretty good working definition of monogamy. Like I said I’ve been monogamous to my owner for several years. Gender attraction is different from desire to be with multiple people.

quote:


i don't know what it's like for bisexual people; whether if they attempt monogamy they are left longing for a fulfilling relationship with the sex not chosen, or what. And does it vary from person to person, or over a lifetime.


I’m not longing nor do I feel like I’m lacking. I think you are assuming that if you are bisexual that means you must actively be having sex with both genders, which for me isn’t the case (though I’ve certainly been with women in the past.

C~



kyraofMists -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 5:15:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper

If You remember my profile, it says "i will learn sex/play from my One". This means i will try and turn myself into a pretzel for Him, but i'm not gonna play at being a pretzel before i find Him. He may have no interest in pretzels.


This statement – “I will try and turn myself into a pretzel for Him.” My perception of this statement is that you are saying, I will make myself into everything he needs. You cannot become something that you are not. You can’t give him something that is not within you to give.

In some ways, my perception is that you contradict yourself. You say I will not do this or that, but then you say that you will try to make yourself into something for your partner. So what if your partner decides that the pretzel they want you to be is a polygamist bi-sexual?

There are many relationships that start out with the intent on monogamy (my Lord’s relationship with alandra, he started it with the intent of monogamy, it was alandra who introduced the idea of poly after several years together) and then one or the other has changes in their needs and desires and decide they want something different. So it is possible that you start this relationship and then later he realizes that what he wants is poly. Do you become that pretzel?


quote:



i'm unsure what you mean when you say "one person cannot meet all the needs of another". It says further down in my profile that i have a child i adore and friends i would not give up for anything. So no; i think people are more social and simply relating to one person would not be healthy.


To help you understand my statement, I will use an example. If I am upset and what I need at that moment is compassion or sympathy, I will not turn to my Lord because he is more likely to give me a kick in the ass than compassion or sympathy. If this is what I need, I will turn to alandra. She is very compassionate and sympathetic. If what I need is a kick in the ass or a reality check, I am going to turn to my Lord. My need for compassion is not something I look for my Lord to satisfy. Its real nice if on the rare day he is actually able to give that to me, but it is not what I look for him to do.

I knew this going into a relationship with him and I knew that I would have to get that need satisfied elsewhere. The bonus was that alandra could meet that need. I do not seek to make him into something that he is not. If I make the error in judgment and go to him when I need compassion and I just get the kick in the ass instead, I don’t hold it against him. I don’t run to others and say look what he did isn’t he mean (I see that so often among couples). No, he isn’t being mean. It was my decision to go to someone that I knew couldn’t give me what I needed. Just because he is the center of my life does not mean that he can or could give me everything I need.

Just because you interact with people who are able to meet a need of yours does not mean that you will not try and seek to have one person satisfy all of your needs. You may seek to have a wide variety of friends and family in your life, but I still get the impression that once you find your partner then you will look to them to be everything for you. I fully understand that my impression could be incorrect.


quote:



If what you mean is i should enter a relationship in which the ground rules are He will step out on me as he wishes, well, sorry, but that's not me. i can be peaceful and reasonably happy alone; i'd be mmiserable and heart-broken in a relationship where the Man steps out.



This is an inaccurate assumption of my intent even after I stated that I was not advocating poly. I am not using the term "needs" as a euphemism for sex or intimacy. There are a lot of needs I have that have little to do with sex.

“Stepping out” has a very negative connotation, it implies cheating. For me cheating is when you are involved in another relationship and you feel you have to hide it from your partner. Polyamory is not the same as cheating.


quote:



Thank you for taking the time to answer me; i'm not sure if you gave advice, but if so, thank you.



Hmmm... LOL That reads like “thanks for nothing” to me, but it was my pleasure. The advice was to try and balance all your expectations with what is reasonable, to understand that there is a big difference between giving all you have and being everything. If you aren’t a pretzel, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to make you a pretzel. Unreasonable expectations cause a lot of conflicts in relationships.

quote:


Well, i cannot respond to something as amorphous as "your other posts left this-and-such impression" kyra, so let me set that aside. However, i would like to say it's not always easy to write from a POV not your own; we all tend to write from our own POV's. i never assume anyone who writes thusly is disrepecting anyone else, and i doubt that's ever the case with any member.


Since you chose to make a comment about it on the boards, you really haven’t set it aside have you? I guess you missed my statement where I said if my Lord allows I would go through some of your posts and send you an email with the statements that gave me my impression?? If my Lord allows, I'll point them out in future posts.

quote:



By it's nature, a relationship with a Dom or Master who desired a bisexual woman would not be monogamous...


Bisexuality does not automatically preclude monogamy. There are as many monogamous bisexual people as there are monogamous heterosexual or homosexual people. Just because we are bisexual doesn't mean we are automatically poly. It just means we have a larger pool to pick our partners from and then many make the choice to have monogamous relationships.


quote:



Does not appeal, as you can imagine. Accepting and learning to love cats is not the same as agreeing to a sexual relationship with a woman. Not the same as giving up on monogamy.


No where in my post did I say you should give up monogamy!!!! That is an incorrect assumption you have made. I did not compare learning to love cats to changing your sexual orientation. I gave it as an example of changing needs and desires and that these can be many things and not just sex. You have made my post all about sex, not I.

quote:



i think straight women get disrespected here sometimes, as some people think they are bisexual and just haven't figured it out yet. If i said lesbians were straight women who just hadn't figured it out yet, people would be angry. i don't expect anyone to be angry -- a destructive emotion anyway -- but i point out the contrast so you can see where i would feel disrespected at times.



Yes, sometimes straight women get disrespected for their choices. Just like bisexual people get disrespected when others assume they are incapable of having monogamous relationships. Like you have done in the following example, “By it's nature, a relationship with a Dom or Master who desired a bisexual woman would not be monogamous...”

quote:



Anyway, returning to the Op post; my point was the high percent of Doms and Masters seeking bisexual women is somewhat discouraging...but as KoM has said; it's a case of a smaller pool of candidates...and having a larger pool doesn't ensure happiness.

candystripper


You are right, having a larger pool doesn’t ensure happiness, but it does increase the probability that you will find what you are looking for. I agreed with what my Lord said and only added this following perspective:

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

it is unreasonable for me to expect that he will be able to satisfy every need I have and it is unreasonable for him to expect that I will satisfy all of his needs.



I should add to this that a significant amount of needs do need to be met by the relationship whether it is poly or monogamous and there are certain needs that must be fulfilled in the relationship. Which leads right back to what my Lord was saying about a smaller pool of candidates.

I posted to this thread out of a genuine interest to share my perspective and to further expand on the thoughts of my Lord. My post was expressed out of friendly advice and was not judgmental or critical of your choices, if anything it was supportive of your right to choose what is best for you. Like any choice, there are consequences to them, hence the smaller pool.

I will no longer participate in this thread.

Knight’s kyra



candystripper -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 5:51:15 PM)

quote:

Gay men or at least the friends I have and the people I know, are known as gay because that is their orientation. Having been involved with male gay couples, I can safely say that they enjoy sexual relations full stop. Being with a woman does not make them bi... same as a woman being with another woman does not make her either a lesbian or bi... it just makes her experimental or obeying...

Orientation has nothing to do with who you have sex with - there are many hetrosexual and homosexual people who completely abstain from sexual intercourse but are still hetrosexual or homosexual.

You are still a submissive, even without a Master... orientation is what we are - not what we do.

darkangel


Well, i have not grilled my gay friends about their experiences, but have been left with the impression that they had not had sex with women. Two are a settled couple, quite monogamous. But i suppose it's a self-assigned label, so more experimental people might claim to be gay.

candystripper



candystripper -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 5:53:29 PM)

TY B1gBear; what a gentleman.

candystripper



candystripper -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 5:56:33 PM)

quote:

I don't think anyone was suggesting that candy, candy, candy become bi, bi, bisexual. I'm not even sure you can "become" bisexual.

All I was saying, is that if it's a roadblock ... which can be assumed, since we are now on page five of this thread ... there are ways to make it a little easier.

One thing I will differ on, is that this is some sort of heavy emotional or psychological issue. Well, it might be ... but it's a really small one. I'm sure candy knows about much bigger ones, as we have discussed them before on this board.

If it washes off in the shower, it's nothing to get too fucking upset over.

caitlyn


Sweetie, i'm very fond of you but please try to understand. My sexual orientation is a part of who i am; and i am not bisexual. ok? i am beginning to feel very weirded out; is being straight unacceptable? B1gBear's acceptance is a start; can we all agree that straight people have their place at the banquet as well? (Gawd how weird this is.)

candystripper



Shayna -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 6:27:42 PM)

quote:

candy, candy, candy ... it's not so tough girlfriend.

You get a little drunk ... you get some of that cool strawberry tasting oil, and voila!!!


ROFLMAO!

quote:


Sweetie, i'm very fond of you but please try to understand. My sexual orientation is a part of who i am; and i am not bisexual. ok? i am beginning to feel very weirded out; is being straight unacceptable? B1gBear's acceptance is a start; can we all agree that straight people have their place at the banquet as well? (Gawd how weird this is.)


Tad bit condescending, eh?
I find it rather entertaining when those in the "norm" get their feathers ruffled because they aren't getting validation for their position. Welcome to the party of outlaws. Most of us have a ton of experience being marginalized for one reason or another and there is a strong sense of respecting differences, as opposed to making one choice better than another.



MizSuz -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 6:33:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs

I’m not longing nor do I feel like I’m lacking. I think you are assuming that if you are bisexual that means you must actively be having sex with both genders, which for me isn’t the case (though I’ve certainly been with women in the past.

C~



C,

That was well said. I've often run into mindsets that say "bi sexual means they'll do anybody." That's simply wrong. Granted, there may be bisexual people who 'will do anybody' much as there are heterosexuals who will 'do anyone of the opposite sex.' The same could be said for some subset of gay. But 'bi' doesn't by default mean 'promiscuous.'

Tell me, do you think serial monogamists are really monogamous?

hmmmm...



afmvdp -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 6:40:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper

But afmvdp, i cannot offer this. First, i want/need/desire a relationship which belongs only to the two of U/us. Then, i cannot engage sexually with a woman to please a Man..any Man..ever. That's just not in my repetorie, nor would it be. Which is why i avoid Men who desire bisexual women.

candystripper


Then the issue is a constant in your life, you must then come to grips with such and realize that you are in a world where you may be forced to make a choice between someone who may mold with you perfectly in every other way other than that and whether or not you would be able to allow yourself that level of submission. To me it sounds like a far deeper seeded psychological hangup and so perhaps the real question you should be asking yourself is "why is this such a hard limit for me?" and it is only through looking within to find your answers you can come to absolution one way or the other.

You just also will have to realize that just because it does not work for you, does not make it in any way wrong, just that it is something at this stage in your life you are uncomfortable with and that is fine. I have met many monogomous people within this life locally and this board alone even, so it's going to just become part of your weeding process.



MizSuz -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 6:52:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper

Just return a bit of respect and accept that no, i will not change, i will not have any bi-sexual encounters with women. Ever. That's what "straight" means and it's not something to be ashamed of.

candystripper[/font][/size][/color]



candy,

You should have what you want in your relationships. If you want to be heterosexually monogamous it's ok with me, honestly. I can tell that it is something that is very important to you and as such should be important to a 'mate.' In your case a man.

In the final analysis creating the life we want is our own responsibility. Good for you for stepping up to the plate and defining your vision, it's a definite step towards creating it.

You are in a sea of people who do not personally agree with you, and I'm sure you will or have found that there are plenty out there who do. <shrug> So what?

What started this thread? Oh yeah, you asked if you were suffering alone.

You do know that suffering is optional, right?




IrishMist -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 7:04:59 PM)

Hmmm, a tricky one in and of itself.

I am straight. I have no bisexual tenencies what-so-ever. But I have been with a woman. And not because I was told to either. I offered it as an anniversary present for my first year anniversary to my husband. He had always respected my wish not to have other women ( though he often mentioned the possibility), but I knew that it was something he wanted. So, I gave it as a present. It did not make our relationship anything less that what it was; which was monogamus, and nor did it make me bisexual.

Many men list this more as a fantasy than as a reality :)



candystripper -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 7:14:05 PM)

candystripper



Noah -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 7:19:04 PM)

Can you forgive me for reading hyperbolic questions like these as self-pitying"
quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper
"Are straight women just not exciting?"

Can you make room for the idea that a man can find a given straight woman very exciting indeed and yet still prefer the company of someone more compatible with himself?
quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper
"Is monogamy just never enough?"

Do you sincerely believe that except for you, monogamy (as you conceive it) is not enough for anyone, ever within the contextual frame you have established (doms on this site)?

There are well established conventions for making a piece of writing sound like "poor, poor, me" and you are following them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper

i am prepared to move heaven and earth to make my One happy and i am expecting sexual and emotional loyalty from Him in return, amoung other things.




Most often when I hear people say things like this, discussion reveals that the "loyalty" they want largely boils down to exclusivity, and the exclusivity they want boils down to sexual exclusivity. Everyone I have discussed this with seems quite comfortable with the idea that their partner could have significant and deeply meaningful emotional attachments and involvements of various type with a variety of people. When things are rough between you and your One, should he have no one to talk it over with except perhaps impartial, paid consultants? And how about you? You have said repeatedly, Candy, that your family and friends are very important to you and that you would never give them up for the sake of your partner. I think that's great. I presume that this importance is emotional and you aren't keepingthem around for housework or to do your taxes. Most of us can accept a very strong and important notion of emotional loyalty which doesn't require exclusivity. When one half of a couple demands emotional exclusivity and word gets out, he or she is often called abusive, and perhaps rightly.

I'll bet you'd be fine with a partner whose emotional loyalty to you didn't require him to forsake his emotional loyalty to others. But you don't want him moistening his whatchamacallit anywhere else, right? Let's call it by its name is what I'm saying. I'm not calling it good or bad.

And as for the impossibility of a monogamous relationship with a bisexual person, this is simply preposterous. You're making things out to be so much more difficult than they are. Awfulizing, some people call it. I'm sure you can see that a monogamous monosexual person is forsaking certain interactions with just tons and tons of people who all happen to be of one gender. Monogamous bisexual people also forsake certain interactions with tons and tons of people. This group happen to be of more than one gender. There isn't the slightest difficulty here unless you think it is harder to forsake sex with six billion people than it is to forsake sex with three billion.

Not that a guy would need to be bisexual himself to be aroused by bisexual behavior between women.

Now that all of this is unmistakeably clear we can move on to new, if not unrelated topics.

I wonder if your notion of submission or slavery admits the possibility of ever doing something you would prefer not to, just for the sake of your dominant? I expect that it does. I think it is hilarious but I do see a lot of self-proclaimed submissives or even "slaves" who basically state they they will do absolutely anything for their dominant/owner that they would have done anyway on their own, but that doing something contrary to their personal preferences would be some kind of moral failing, or at least too big an inconvenience to be bothered with.

Now you have made it clear that girls don't turn you on, that you would never choose one as a sexual partner. This is noted and accepted as one of your own little idiosyncratic perversities. You are not alone in this. May a thousand flowers bloom.

Given that it needn't be particularly dangerous, nor physically painful--nor even uncomfortable ... given that in fact despite your stated preferences, having, say, a pair of human hands carefully attending to your this or that could be quite physically pleasureable even it it squicked you mentally ...

... and given that in your case it would be an especially powerful and unquestionable showng of devotion, willingness, and surrrender ...


... well given all this, would one of the ways you'd be willing to make yourself be a pretzel for your One be to obey your dominant when he says: "Close your eyes, undress, and allow the person who walks up behind you to manually molest you as they see fit" in a case where you couldn't even tell whether the molester was himself, or another him, or some her or other?


If this is a hard limit for you, that's fine with me. Some sorts of hard limits strike me as very easy to understand.

Hard limits based on:

intolerable pain,
injury or damage,
risk of public exposure,
involvement of unwilling or underage participants
moral grounds

... for instance.

But when a person bandies about words like "slave" and yet declares hard limits based on, well, a sort of distaste for a given, objectively innocuous activity, then I begin to feel that the word slave has been distorted quite beyond recognition and even the word submissive is being stretched past its uesful range of application.


I hope you don't feel picked on. I mean most people here state their preferences and desires and allow strangers to do the same. You, on the other hand, choose to publicly take issue with a large group of strangers for either their preferences or their stating of them. I'm not sure which. And you state that merely reading about a desire for a bisexual partner on the part of some stranger makes you "sad" and "frustrated," and you bemoan the fact that they don't take your feelings into account--so I figure that this whole area is something you want to explore.

And here we are.






Wildfleurs -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 7:19:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper

You are better than this. Isn't it clear by now i'd never accept a collar from a Man who desired a bisexual woman? If that Man changed His desires; we would part company. Honest to pete...why is being straight so controversial?

candystripper


I think you are making this thread be all about your desire to be straight and how people are "hating" on you for that, when really if you look back at the thread, most of it has been people addressing assumptions and "rules" you've tried to present in this thread (such as not knowing any women who want to see men together... and that bisexual=poly).

Repeatedly people have said its okay to be straight.

C~



brightspot -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 7:19:39 PM)

quote:

why is being straight so controversial?


Who said being straight is controversial?

I think people could respond to you until we are all blue in the
face and you still would not get any of it[>:] so another thread goes by
where you still haven't a clue, although your questions have been answered in a myriad of ways, Sheesh!

*Brightspot



caitlyn -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 7:20:09 PM)

Sorry if I weirding you out candy.



candystripper -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 7:28:45 PM)

quote:

Tad bit condescending, eh?
I find it rather entertaining when those in the "norm" get their feathers ruffled because they aren't getting validation for their position. Welcome to the party of outlaws. Most of us have a ton of experience being marginalized for one reason or another and there is a strong sense of respecting differences, as opposed to making one choice better than another.

Shayna


i'm not at all condescending to Caitlyn; i like her very much. What you seem to be implying is that people have spoken with malice because they have been the object of bigotry before. What a plan.

candystripper



IrishMist -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 7:29:59 PM)

quote:

Honest to pete...why is being straight so controversial?


Its not controversial. But I understand the point of views of the others quite well. I am straight, I list that I am looking for that in a relationship. But, if he at one time decided to introduce another woman into the mix, it would be his decision to do so. Granted, I would like to have it discussed, but in the end, it is not my decision. I accept that, and yet at the same time, stress that I am not bisexual, and would perfer NOT to be with women.

Candy, it all comes down to what you and your partner want. Much like labels, everyone is different, and everyone will put a different definition on what it means to be a submissive or a slave. But in the end, the only opinions that count...are yours and his. And yes, I do believe that there is someone out there who is looking JUST FOR YOU. Don't pass him by though just because he happens to mention in passing that he may 'like' to have two women :)



candystripper -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 7:32:17 PM)

quote:

That was well said. I've often run into mindsets that say "bi sexual means they'll do anybody." That's simply wrong. Granted, there may be bisexual people who 'will do anybody' much as there are heterosexuals who will 'do anyone of the opposite sex.' The same could be said for some subset of gay. But 'bi' doesn't by default mean 'promiscuous.'

Tell me, do you think serial monogamists are really monogamous?

hmmmm...


i think there's value in focusing on one person as a lover as opposed to trying to bed every one of the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders. While the lovers are together, if they are monogamous, i'd say that was a good thing -- if that is what they promised. i can tell you i wish the men who cheated on me had simply ended our relationship before the lying began.

candystripper



candystripper -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 7:37:55 PM)

quote:

Then the issue is a constant in your life, you must then come to grips with such and realize that you are in a world where you may be forced to make a choice between someone who may mold with you perfectly in every other way other than that and whether or not you would be able to allow yourself that level of submission. To me it sounds like a far deeper seeded psychological hangup and so perhaps the real question you should be asking yourself is "why is this such a hard limit for me?" and it is only through looking within to find your answers you can come to absolution one way or the other.

You just also will have to realize that just because it does not work for you, does not make it in any way wrong, just that it is something at this stage in your life you are uncomfortable with and that is fine. I have met many monogomous people within this life locally and this board alone even, so it's going to just become part of your weeding process.

afmvdp


i know why it's a hard limit for me...and i accept it. Frankly i'd be surprised if there are tons of healthy aduts around for whom sexual orientation is not a fixed point on the landscape. i know some Man may be great, but not want monogamy...and i accept He is not right for me. i never said bisexuaility was wrong; i despise bigotry. It's just not me; but i don't have to be Black, or poor, or Hispanic, or any of a number of things to see that bigotry is wrong.

candystripper



candystripper -> RE: Straight Woman Blues (12/23/2005 7:42:45 PM)

quote:

candy,

You should have what you want in your relationships. If you want to be heterosexually monogamous it's ok with me, honestly. I can tell that it is something that is very important to you and as such should be important to a 'mate.' In your case a man.

In the final analysis creating the life we want is our own responsibility. Good for you for stepping up to the plate and defining your vision, it's a definite step towards creating it.

You are in a sea of people who do not personally agree with you, and I'm sure you will or have found that there are plenty out there who do. <shrug> So what?

What started this thread? Oh yeah, you asked if you were suffering alone.

You do know that suffering is optional, right?


It was a bit tongue-in-cheek; asking whether other straight women were frustrated by the perennial search for bisexual women. Life is now, only now. What may come next year may be wonderful, but tonite i am uncollared and plan to do whatever tickles my fancy.

candystripper



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875