RE: Training (not the fetishy kind)

RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (Full Version)

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

Message

lobodomslavery -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 1:28:23 AM)
im a sub male. im not interested in sex or manipulation of others authority. i have never had sex with any woman in my life. im 30. im purely a service sub nothing more. my advice to you is that he is possibly a do me sub. With do me subs you have to try and reform him if you want to keep him. But ultimately you must ask do you really want bickering fighting and squabbling with a sub to be your lot in life or would you rather have a better sub. Ireland fits in to California many times. You im sure will have your pick of subs. If he doesnt change ditch him, only You can decide the time frame. But the bottom line is there must be plenty of sub men in California and since your not married to him you can either persevere with him or ditch him. it s up to You kevin

khem -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 7:29:31 AM)
I had a nice long talk with him. He enjoys doing things for me, but he isn't that much into the D/s outside the bedroom stuff (which I am). At this point we agreed that we like each other too much to abandon everything, but that we might need to renegotiate the relationship to include other partners, etc. He did say, however, that he is willing to at least try to see things my way. After explaining what I found hot and why, he did eventually get it. One of the things he said (which would explain his reactions) is "if there's not sex involved - it's just abuse." That kind of blew me away, since I don't get that at all. He admitted that consent is really the basis for making something not abusive, but I don't imagine I'll change that thought any time soon. thanks for the replies

AAkasha -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 9:42:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: khem I had a nice long talk with him. He enjoys doing things for me, but he isn't that much into the D/s outside the bedroom stuff (which I am). At this point we agreed that we like each other too much to abandon everything, but that we might need to renegotiate the relationship to include other partners, etc. He did say, however, that he is willing to at least try to see things my way. After explaining what I found hot and why, he did eventually get it. One of the things he said (which would explain his reactions) is "if there's not sex involved - it's just abuse." That kind of blew me away, since I don't get that at all. He admitted that consent is really the basis for making something not abusive, but I don't imagine I'll change that thought any time soon. thanks for the replies Your relationships is very complex so my suggestion may be very off base so I will just offer it up and may some portion of it will make sense and/or work for you. In my experience some sub men, while not 100% bottoms, need a certain level of sexual motivation (even if it's not sex) to keep focus. I got the idea since you said if there is no sex involved, it's abuse. But how do you make something sexual if it's not in the bedroom? That's not so difficult - the difficulty is managing his arousal if he's constantly being turned on because you turn mundane things into sexual things in his head. Saying, "Go run this errand for me, now," may just come across as bitchy or bossy or make him feel henpecked. Turning it into a sexual command of some sort is the extreme way to do it and takes constant work. The more reasonable way to do it is to make sure that when you command and he obeys, his entire attitude and behavior pleases you in a sexual manner or feeds your libido. This can come from a clever smile and the right words, or a reward system at the end of the day, when you reflect back at what a "good boy" he was and work yourself up (and him) by showing him that his OBEDIENCE is a bit of a sensual, sexual lubricant for you. Submissive men need rewards; some just need some feedback, but others needs to feel they are obeying a bit of a lustful fantasy femdom, even if he is not having sex with her right that moment. You bottle up that sexual energy that has built up, then, and use it later. But the commands, and his expected behavior, ultimately are foreplay; your role is to motivate him by showing him, telling him, reminding him - yes, this makes you wet, it turns you on, it feeds your femdom side, and MOST important is that it pleases you. The challenge will come when you decide if this additional effort on your part starts to suck the energy out of you so much that the commanding process, the feedback loop all just are not worth the reward of his obedience. And, if his behaviors start to improve on his own because he's sort of re-programmed to get a charge out of being "a good boy" on his own. Some men are just simply more sexually motivated and yes it's a turn off if you feel like a man is just "doing it for sex." But remember you own your sexuality and to some degree (up to you) you own HIS PLEASURE. So you have the choice to use your sexuality for YOUR benefit and make seduction and sexuality a huge motivator. It doesn't mean you have to give him a blow job to get him to unload the dishwasher. It means you have to reward him for that task not by saying "You are my slave so you should enjoy doing it," but by making sure he knows that his obedience turns you on. Tell him, show him, be graphic to him - the best way to push a man's hot buttons in a sexual way is most often the most blunt and direct. The question becomes whether or not having him turned on makes him too distracted to function well or how long can he carry that arsoual around on a day to day basis without having release immediately. How does he handle prolonged arousal without release? Can you stretch those times out? Can you implement chastity to some degree? If he clearly is not self motivated as a sub, your choice is whether or not the "fuel" you have to feed him to get him to perform is one you can provide without feeling burnt out or sexualized or unhappy. This is all a bit of a shot in the dark so none of it may even fit, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Remember: Just because you turned him on doesn't mean you have to fuck him. Akasha

PeonForHer -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 10:09:14 AM)
"Once a bottom, always a bottom, and never a sub"? I know for myself that that's not true. I was wondering, in a much vaguer way, whether something along those lines might work. This all looks more like offering carrots than finding ways of using sticks. Carrots for both partners, to boot. That was quite a fascinating post, A.

cloudboy -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 12:24:00 PM)
There's a case to be made that mowing the lawn, grocery shopping, vacuuming, paying bills, cooking, and cleaning are not BDSM. No one really needs to stretch their imagination to understand how doing these tasks may not be exciting or fulfilling. It might be unrealistic to expect that one's femdom or "slave" status can magically transform the mundane into a "deeper experience" by edict of "power exchange." If a sub is into his relationship to you, if you relate well to one another intellectually, and if there is sexual chemistry --- he is far from an asshole for not wanting the chores roped into the BDSM. Arguably in the above scenario the sub is being abundantly more reasonable than the DOM, for he's getting high marks in all the essential areas of M-F relationships --- and yet he's being tagged with "sill not doing enough." Regarding men in particular, if a guy already has a day job and a healthy allotment of household responsibilities to boot, its no wonder he would not want BDSM to add in even more to his demanding workload. He's going to have a hard time seeing the either the basic or sex appeal of that. I don't see how you could train a guy to think differently here either. The only exception I see to the above is the male interested in living a life of slavery, but I really don't think too many guys fall into this category.

MistressAinCT -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 12:36:10 PM)
Have you tried discussing whether or not his heart is still into BDSM and service? People change, situations change-you know these things. Just because as a Dominant you or I remain in charge, doesn't mean a sub will always be sub. And I guess the reverse is true. Maybe he can't tell you verbally something is wrong, but his actions show it. He could be seeking a kinky relationship without the committment. I had one of those, and since it wasn't what I wanted, I ended it. I have no time or patience for people who suck Me dry BDSM wise, but won't reciprocate like they should with service. It's like the little red hen and the bread: they all WANTED to eat it, but no one wanted to help make it. I understand the emotional attachment. We tend to go into our vanilla selves by saying "I love him so I can accept this". Then we wake up and smell the coffee and say, "hey wait a minute! That's not what this is about AT ALL!". It's that "aha" moment that makes us wonder if we are putting out more than we are getting, but mostly: AM I HAPPY AND SATISFIED. If the answer is NO, you need change. I think you need to lay it on the line with this fellow. Reitterate your needs even if you have to WRITE them down (not a contract-those don't work!) and make him understand, but do it when his balls are NOT in a vice. If it takes hold then you have made the right move, but in a few weeks if things don't change, perhaps its time for you guys to move on. Find someone worthy of you who CAN obey...they are out there..somewhere...I hope...

Venatrix -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 12:38:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy There's a case to be made that mowing the lawn, grocery shopping, vacuuming, paying bills, cooking, and cleaning are not BDSM. Exactly. And given that I work a full-time job, he'd better be helping with the chores if he wants to be part of my life, just as I do my fair share of the chores. Once those are done, we'll have playtime. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let some guy loll around whilst I do it all and then play later on when I'm tired. If a man has any brains, he'll be voluntarily helpful just so that his partner doesn't feel put upon. A woman shouldn't have to make doing chores sexy for a guy to pull his weight.

LadyPact -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 1:38:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: khem I had a nice long talk with him. He enjoys doing things for me, but he isn't that much into the D/s outside the bedroom stuff (which I am). At this point we agreed that we like each other too much to abandon everything, but that we might need to renegotiate the relationship to include other partners, etc. He did say, however, that he is willing to at least try to see things my way. After explaining what I found hot and why, he did eventually get it. One of the things he said (which would explain his reactions) is "if there's not sex involved - it's just abuse." That kind of blew me away, since I don't get that at all. He admitted that consent is really the basis for making something not abusive, but I don't imagine I'll change that thought any time soon. thanks for the replies I wanted to thank you for the post, as well as the follow up. I'm glad the two of you had the ability to talk and be open about what your actual interests are, even if they didn't quite match for the two of you. It would be My opinion that it's better for the two of you to know where each of you stand and what you really want.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 4:34:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy There's a case to be made that mowing the lawn, grocery shopping, vacuuming, paying bills, cooking, and cleaning are not BDSM. So long as your definition of BDSM is devoid of any concept of domination, submission or service, then sure. Personally, I think that a person who feels this way would be far, far better off just admitting that he/she isn't really into BDSM, they're just into Kinky Sex. Vanilla people are more than capable of dealing with kinky sex and "power exchanges" that never leave the bedroom--admitting that you're just kinky would broaden the dating options of most sex-only kinksters enormously.

cloudboy -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 8:56:48 PM)
quote: Exactly. And given that I work a full-time job, he'd better be helping with the chores if he wants to be part of my life, just as I do my fair share of the chores. Once those are done, we'll have playtime. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let some guy loll around whilst I do it all and then play later on when I'm tired. If a man has any brains, he'll be voluntarily helpful just so that his partner doesn't feel put upon. A woman shouldn't have to make doing chores sexy for a guy to pull his weight. Right, most evolved guys are into division of labor and household responsibilities, but the larger question is do BDSM roles govern homemaking assignments or does something else either more commonsensical or egalitarian decide them? I suppose the next question is, do common sense and egalitarianism dilute BDSM? Are they traits antithetical to "power exchange?" Is a malesub with egalitarian sensibilities a "do me" sub?

Venatrix -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 9:15:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: Exactly. And given that I work a full-time job, he'd better be helping with the chores if he wants to be part of my life, just as I do my fair share of the chores. Once those are done, we'll have playtime. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let some guy loll around whilst I do it all and then play later on when I'm tired. If a man has any brains, he'll be voluntarily helpful just so that his partner doesn't feel put upon. A woman shouldn't have to make doing chores sexy for a guy to pull his weight. Right, most evolved guys are into division of labor and household responsibilities, but the larger question is do BDSM roles govern homemaking assignments or does something else either more commonsensical or egalitarian decide them? I suppose the next question is, do common sense and egalitarianism dilute BDSM? Are they traits antithetical to to "power exchange?" Is a malesub with egalitarian sensibilities a "do me" sub? People are going to structure their d/s relationships in whatever way works for them. I recently wrote privately to someone that people involved with d/s spend way too much time analysing things. Rather than following a BDSM handbook that says, "chores will be divided as follows," I think most people would spend their time more wisely if they communicated with each other about what fulfills them, and then planned their relationship accordingly.

OneMoreWaste -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 10:50:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: khem That kind of blew me away, since I don't get that at all. He admitted that consent is really the basis for making something not abusive, but I don't imagine I'll change that thought any time soon. Ooooookay... So if you don't think that consent cuts the line between abuse and BDSM, where exactly would you consider that line to be?

OneMoreWaste -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 11:02:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I suppose the next question is, do common sense and egalitarianism dilute BDSM? Are they traits antithetical to "power exchange?" "Common sense" is a bogus turn of phrase utilized to diminish opposing points of view without presenting a defense. And, yeah, by definition egalitarian division of labor and a consensual imbalance of power are diametrically opposed. And... the sky is blue. So? (sorry cloudy, normally I'm wit' ya, but yo' game is weak to'nite a'ight?)

OneMoreWaste -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/19/2009 11:31:51 PM)
And may I just add: Fetishes??? OH NOEZ! DO NOT WANT!! [8\|]

khem -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/20/2009 7:10:21 AM)
Is it un-PC, in a BDSM forum, to say I don't want things equal and fair?

cloudboy -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/20/2009 7:24:27 AM)
quote: Is it un-PC, in a BDSM forum, to say I don't want things equal and fair? No, but I've always wondered how effective it is building a LT relationship with such values. I had a friend who knew a femsub who simply exploded in a rage, taking the framed set of rules off her wall and chucking them across the living room after a long period "power exchange" with her master. (1.5 yrs) She would come home from work, cook, clean up --- tend to his every need, etc. He didn't do anything. If they watched TV, she had to watch his shows...etc. At some point in the femsub's eyes he simply changed from being a MASTER into an asshole who wasn't contributing enough to the household. Everytime I hear about her yanking "the rules" (framed) off the wall and chucking them across the living room (glass shattering), I just crack up. To me, that idiot didn't really understand the proper limits of BDSM with his partner. At a certain point, taking advantage of another person becomes just that. I don't think its a PC line, its a common sense line. I don't think her actions make her a bad or a "do me" femsub either.

cloudboy -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/20/2009 7:32:21 AM)
quote: "Common sense" is a bogus turn of phrase utilized to diminish opposing points of view without presenting a defense. I prefer to think of it as a fluid term. Its only "bogus" in so much as its extremely relative and situational --- while somehow remainly oddly universal. Legally it would be tagged as "indefinite." Fluidity has its place.

littlesarbonn -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/20/2009 7:48:22 AM)
What's worked for me is consistency. I have found that a relationship often goes south when the boundaries start to become blurred and then go back and forth. One of my closest friends used to be my Mistress, but she was anything but consistent. That's just not in her nature. So we became really good friends instead. She and I realized we'd never be completely compatible as Mistress and slave, even though our intimate interactions were always great. Every now and then, we'd hook up again and she'd have her way with me, but then she'd go on her merry way and I wouldn't see her for a number of months after that.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/20/2009 8:10:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy She would come home from work, cook, clean up --- tend to his every need, etc. *He didn't do anything.* The relevant words are bolded for emphasis: again, this is the part of the relationship that was broken. I have described such dominant-submissive dynamics before, with a male submissive as the victim. Experiences like this one, which lead to rebellion and ugly break-ups and long periods of doubt and angst about BDSM, occur when the submissive partner gives too much and does not receive enough. The fallacy behind your reasoning is that the fault lies only with non-egalitarian relations. It doesn't. Even vanilla partners can break up when one partner's feelings and needs are privileged over the other--while relations of dominance and submission can be maintained for decades, very happily, with both partners very satisfied and fulfilled, if the partners understand and care for each other. As in any relationship, a balance has to be struck so that no one is operating in the red for long periods of time while the other is cheerfully in the black and oblivious. Whenever such a thing takes place, the relationship will eventually crash and burn. The problem with this and other threads like it is that some people cannot accept that a need for dominance outside of the bedroom is a legitimate and acceptable need in a relationship. Being served and obeyed, wielding authority and control, IS what dominance is about. Topping during sex or play is really only the tip of the iceberg, and when a bottom insists that the tip of the iceberg is all that is wanted or needed, it can force the dominant partner to operate in the red. As for the rest--I agree with OneMoreWaste and Khem that "power exchange" is not something that really occurs between equals, nor is it something that occurs only in the bedroom. The happiest dominants and submissives I have seen are those who have thrown egalitarian politics out the window and allowed personal satisfaction to be their only guide. This is true whether the submissive is a man who worries that submission is not "manly" or a woman who worries that submission is not "feminist". Ditto for dominants who worry that their need for sadistic pleasure or authority and control are "wrong". BDSM is NOT politically correct sex and love, and it never ever will be. The people who are miserable in BDSM are not those who don't have "egalitarian" relationships; they're the ones who don't have satisfying relationships. An abusive, selfish dominant enjoys no Get Out of Jail Free card when they are deliberately blind to the needs and happiness of their submissive, no. But the same is true of the submissive partner. If your domme is not happy and fulfilled without receiving obedience and service outside the bedroom, you have to either find some way to give her that, or terminate the relationship and find yourself either a vanilla top or someone that you love enough to serve her happily and willingly. Also, just as an aside to OneMoreWaste--I think you misinterpreted Khem's statement. Her boy called any exercise of authority outside of sexplay "abuse". She says that "abuse" is defined by lack of consent, not by lack of sex. I would agree with her.

Venatrix -> RE: Training (not the fetishy kind) (1/20/2009 9:37:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlesarbonn Every now and then, we'd hook up again and she'd have her way with me, but then she'd go on her merry way and I wouldn't see her for a number of months after that. So, what you're trying to tell us is women need a long time to recover after spending time with you?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125