RE: Am I faithful or stupid?

RE: Am I faithful or stupid? (Full Version)

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

Message

undergroundsea -> RE: Am I faithful or stupid? (11/24/2008 7:12:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DavanKael There are A LOT of men who call themselves straight who have sex with men. Indeed. However, I call myself straight and I do not have sex with men. I think it is more reasonable to assume that one who identifies self as straight does not have sex with men. And if a dominant wants to cross this line, she should bring up the question rather than assume a given straight man is one who enjoys sex with men and then proceed to enact such a scenario. I think her reason to enact the scenario is that she likes seeing it, not because she thought he might like to have sex with other men. I think it is for this reason that she inched her way towards the scene. I think she did not care much if it was a boundary for him or not, which is part of what troubles me about what happened. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Am I faithful or stupid? (11/24/2008 7:22:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Ergo, My personal preference of the term "encouraged bi." I agree that the term forced creates confusion. I think encouraged bi fits some scenarios where one wishes for a bisexual experience while assigning responsibility to someone else to escape the guilt. However, I recall reading an insightful post by a sub on another site about an experience he had where enjoyed sex with a man upon command. He clarified that he has never had any interest to have sex with a man, and does not otherwise wish to have sex with a man. The reason he enjoyed this experience was because of the submission it represented to obey an order. From having absorbed insights he shared, I think another term fits some of the scenarios of a man enjoying having sex with another man upon command: commanded bi. The example I use to convey this concept is that a man might enjoy being forced to lick a toilet or the floor. It is not that he enjoys this activity in itself, but the act of being commanded to do so as a symbol of submission. I think this concept--that a submissive might enjoy upon command an activity otherwise unwanted by him--can also be extended to a submissive man having sex with another man. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Am I faithful or stupid? (11/24/2008 7:32:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I am not sure how much faith one can put in negotiations that are done while one is in subspace. Blimey, Sea - surely you understate? I do in some cases but not in others ;-) I can imagine scenarios where one can ask about a boundary during subspace and the answer is reliable. I think whether or not to ask a question about boundaries during a scene depends on how significant or likely to be a boundary an activity is, how well the two know each other, whether there are other activities that are known to be ok which are similar in spirit, the sub in question, more. The point I wish to convey is that it is not a black and white matter. Some communication about boundaries while in the middle of a scene may be legitimate. However, in general I think negotiations should be had when the two are not in the middle of a scene and are able to exercise more clear judgment. In the case at hand, I think this activity should have been discussed beforehand. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Am I faithful or stupid? (11/24/2008 7:45:24 PM)
This thread brings up some good questions: 1) What should a domme do if a sub has identified limits and she wishes to expand his limits? 2) How should a sub object to approach towards a limit, or otherwise specify a limit without disrupting the D/s space? 3) What should a domme do if she sees potential for an activity during the middle of a scene which has not been previously discussed? Cheers, Sea

DavanKael -> RE: Am I faithful or stupid? (11/24/2008 7:55:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Madame4a While Kinsey was a pioneer.. he's not the be all and end all of sexual orientation... he hasn't done any sexual research in many years...(i.e., he died in 1956) lots has changed since then quote: ORIGINAL: DavanKael quote: ORIGINAL: BKSir Having a dick in your mouth or up your backside, or vice versa, does not make one gay or even bi. However, enjoying it, well... that might be a clue in to things there. Bisexuals are lucky though. 3 times the chance to get some. Bi guys have the option of straight females, bi males and females, AND gay males. Lucky bastages. Then again, according to Kinsey, a bit over 80% of the world population is bisexual to some degree or another, so, yeah, there ya be. You do realize that your definition is contrary to that of Kinsey, yes? Davan I know (Human sexuality is one of my professional interests and I am the proud owner of first editions of both the male and female Kinsey sexual studies), I was merely pointing out to BKSir that he gave his definition and he then cited Kinsey, which contradicts his definition. My personal opinion (And, I am sure that this will get many flames but c'est la vie) is that if you've had sex of any kind with someone of the same sex or if you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex at all, you're not straight. I agree with Kinsey that most people are bi- to one degree or another. Davan

DavanKael -> RE: Am I faithful or stupid? (11/24/2008 8:02:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: ORIGINAL: DavanKael There are A LOT of men who call themselves straight who have sex with men. Indeed. However, I call myself straight and I do not have sex with men. I think it is more reasonable to assume that one who identifies self as straight does not have sex with men. And if a dominant wants to cross this line, she should bring up the question rather than assume a given straight man is one who enjoys sex with men and then proceed to enact such a scenario. I think her reason to enact the scenario is that she likes seeing it, not because she thought he might like to have sex with other men. I think it is for this reason that she inched her way towards the scene. I think she did not care much if it was a boundary for him or not, which is part of what troubles me about what happened. Cheers, Sea Hi, Sea---- Wasn't suggesting, in any way, that someone assume someone who says they are straight isn't; I'm simply saying, ime, a lot of 'straight' men suck cck, get their ccks sucked by men, get f-ed by males, or f-males. I'm a big fan of sex-partners having depthful discussions. Seems that was lacking based on what the OP said, either that, or there was some level of discussion of such things of which we are unaware. I am unable to interpolate that as I do not have that information. Davan

undergroundsea -> RE: Am I faithful or stupid? (11/24/2008 8:13:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DavanKael Hi Davan, Thanks for elaborating and for the clarification. Cheers, Sea

undergroundsea -> RE: Am I faithful or stupid? (11/24/2008 8:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea 1) What should a domme do if a sub has identified limits and she wishes to expand his limits? I am going to take a shot at this question. For sake of a more focused discussion, I have moved my response to a new thread: http://www.collarchat.com/m_2302363/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#2302363 Cheers, Sea

ShaktiSama -> RE: Am I faithful or stupid? (11/24/2008 9:36:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze The fact that he didn't say a thing and went along with it makes me give her the benefit of the doubt, from the way he writes it, at no point in time he said "Stop it, I am straight, it is NOT what I want!" The number of first-time or inexperienced subs who are really SURE what they want is pretty minimal. THAT IS WHY YOU FUCKING TALK ABOUT THINGS BEFORE YOU SPRING YOUR SHE-MALE BUDDY ON THEM IN THE MIDDLE OF A FUCKING SCENE. Not sure why this is so difficult for "some dominants" to grasp. But literally, any time you make a clear and simple statement about a dominant's obligation to be responsible with a submissive's physical and emotional well-being, you'll have someone squealing to lay the blame on the submissive who's ill-used, injured, emotionally devastated--whatever. Doesn't wash with me and will never wash. There are certain obligations attached to being "dominant". Springing your she-male "girlfriend" on a submissive much younger than you, clearly inexperienced and desperate to please and submit to someone (probably for the first time) is just a vile, disgusting act of exploitation. Period.

MsMillgrove -> RE: Am I faithful or stupid? (11/25/2008 1:13:07 AM)
I agree with ShaktiSama that the domme did not behave correctly. If the OP is genuine, then it's obvious that he needs to be trained and treated with care. With subs who have a deep desire to please and are hesitant about saying "no".. it's sensible to roleplay with them. To help them learn to define their limits and express them appropriately. Some dommes don't recognize how hard it can be for a quiet, shy, young sub to use a safeword or say "no thank you." The best way for them to learn is to practice with a patient, caring domme. Strengthening a sub's self-respect and teaching negotiation skills takes time; it's not particularly entertaining for the domme either. If this sub is to believed, he connected with someone who is careless, heedless and breaks her own toys.

MistressFaye1 -> RE: Am I faithful or stupid? (11/25/2008 2:58:10 AM)
I totally agree with your post. In the past and recently I've had conversations with submissives, exploring and on the journey of self discovery. I continue to be surprised at the number of them (male and female) that have been told, they were told by someone, "in order to be a good submissive you have to submit to any and everything your Domme/Dom tells you to." Because they are new, no matter the age in some cases, they believe it and will subject themselves to whatever the "dominant" wants. Rather than discuss it, negotiate, and set limits, the tendancy seems to be they stop seeing the person---as in do a disappearing act. It isn't until they become educated to the fact, there are such things as limits and they have the right to express them, incidents like what the OP experienced stops happening to them. Whether that "education" came as the result of continued negative experiences or because they finally found a dominant that took the time to explain, teach, guide, and allowed exploration is critical to how a submissve views him/herself. IMHO, it is the dominant's responsibility to take into consideration the experience of the submissive and act accordingly. I doubt that any of us, dom or sub came into this lifestyle knowing what our limits were or "experienced" in either role. We learned from trail and error, "doing", being true to ourselves as we discovered how and what makes us tick and by the good and not so good experiences. I am forever grateful to my mentor who once told me "being a Mistress/Domme, comes with great responsibilities for you can build up a person or destroy them." There were lengthy conversations; with various examples and themes centered around the statement throughout my mentorship. That was 34 years ago (damn, has it been that long?) and I still hold the statement as my primary guide. I don't assume anything (i.e. he will tell me initially, on his own) what his limits are. For some they may not even know *what* they are, therefore I choose to get to know the person past what they tell me, if I find there is real potential to develop a D/s relationship present. I would *not* spring anything like what happened to the OP on someone I didn't know very well.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875