RE: New Boys

RE: New Boys (Full Version)

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

Message

thetammyjo -> RE: New Boys (1/26/2009 9:27:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mummyman321 I cannot speak for other and would never try to. I can only speak of my own experiences. When I first got involved in the BDSM lifestyle/scene I know I like it but had no idea why I liked it and what I wanted from it. I think it took me every bit of 5 years really to be able to answer the questions: Am I a Dom or a sub?, why do I like being sub?, what am I seeking in Domme? and how to I want to be involved in the lifestyle (24/7?, publice play?, behind closed doors only?m etc). So from my perspective, those who have just entered into the lifestyle, I do not believe know what they are seeking yet. And maybe some learn much faster than others. For me it took every bit of 5 years to fully understand my wants, desires, and needs. I think that is a very common experience and one of the reasons I urge folks to get into their local communities, make a lot of friends, have a lot of different experiences in kink, and do a lot of reading and reflection as you go along this journey. Even those of us who knew which role would work best for us could not know how it would work best, how it would fit into everything else in our lives, or which particular brand of top or bottom we would end up being. Human beings are creatures of chance and consistency, we balance these two things, so anyone who claims they knew it all from day one is simply lying.

thetammyjo -> RE: New Boys (1/26/2009 9:32:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I've said this before, but it bears repeating, I think. In the UK, we have the institution known as the "finishing school". At age 18, girls whose parents can afford it will attend one of these to be taught how to be "ladies". Cheltenham Ladies' College is one of the most famous. Google it if you want a little titter over quaint Brit eccentricities. It's so frequently occurred to me that the girls don't need such finishing schools - the boys do. Things would be so much smoother between the two sexes if males as a whole learnt a few things regarding how not to act like animals. A school to help boys become gentlemen would be cool and I'm betting the graduates would go on to accomplish great things not just in their personal life but in their business lives as well. One can be assertive in business and still be a gentlemen. You make more friends and allies that way.

LadyPact -> RE: New Boys (1/26/2009 12:10:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UPSG *And I say sexual because I be damned if I'm going to become a non-sexual slave like all those generations of men that toiled in company mines - in debited to the company store. I'm not going to recreate that American story for some woman just because she likes to be called goddess (the new company store). I mean I do have some street in me so game does recognize game. I may be misreading this due to My own personal views. If that is the case, I hope I am not offending you or disrespecting you in some way. Should My comments do so, I apologize. Dominant women vary in how they handle the subject of sex within a dynamic. There are some who exclude all sexual activity and some include it. The last time I checked, that was their right within a female led relationship. This kind of goes back to actually getting to know the Dominant woman that any s-type would want to become involved with. If you don't want to be a part of a non-sexual arrangement, the answer is simple. Don't pursue a Dominant such as Myself who isn't willing to fuck every person who is a self proclaimed sex slave. Believe it or not, some of us are more interested in building a dynamic with an stype, laying a good foundation, instilling a basis for a successful D/s relationship than getting laid. It may sound a little old fashioned, but the vanilla equivilant would be not spreading our legs on the first date and maybe want something a little more substantial. Not everyone wants to fuck first and ask questions later. In My personal experience, the relationships that have been based on something other than My, or anyone else's hormones, have been far more fulfilling.

PeonForHer -> RE: New Boys (1/26/2009 2:49:44 PM)
It may sound a little old fashioned, but the vanilla equivilant would be not spreading our legs on the first date and maybe want something a little more substantial. Not everyone wants to fuck first and ask questions later. On that basis, maybe we D/s-inclined ought to be even more old fashioned than are vanilla-types. After all, certain quantities, such as trust of particular kinds, are needed in bigger doses than are needed in vanilla relationships.

UPSG -> RE: New Boys (1/26/2009 10:21:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: UPSG And I say sexual because I be damned if I'm going to become a non-sexual slave like all those generations of men that toiled in company mines - in debited to the company store. I'm not going to recreate that American story for some woman just because she likes to be called goddess (the new company store). I mean I do have some street in me so game does recognize game. I may be misreading this due to My own personal views. If that is the case, I hope I am not offending you or disrespecting you in some way. Should My comments do so, I apologize. Dominant women vary in how they handle the subject of sex within a dynamic. There are some who exclude all sexual activity and some include it. The last time I checked, that was their right within a female led relationship. This kind of goes back to actually getting to know the Dominant woman that any s-type would want to become involved with. If you don't want to be a part of a non-sexual arrangement, the answer is simple. Don't pursue a Dominant such as Myself who isn't willing to fuck every person who is a self proclaimed sex slave. Believe it or not, some of us are more interested in building a dynamic with an stype, laying a good foundation, instilling a basis for a successful D/s relationship than getting laid. It may sound a little old fashioned, but the vanilla equivilant would be not spreading our legs on the first date and maybe want something a little more substantial. Not everyone wants to fuck first and ask questions later. In My personal experience, the relationships that have been based on something other than My, or anyone else's hormones, have been far more fulfilling. LadyP, I've always liked your posts. And I like this one too. It's the first one I've read tonight just entering this thread. And no, I'm not offended by your reply. However, if my impression of you on this board (from the limited # of posts of yours I've read) is fairly accurate, then I would be correct in judging you a very strong* and capable woman. If so, then even if you had offended me, I'm sure my being offended would not have offended YOU. [sm=lol.gif] Good to go. I think though that you misunderstood me. I was not talking about sex - well not penis enters vagina et cetera sex - I was speaking more like a boot in the ass kind of sex. A slap across the face, a whipping over the bare back and ass of the slave kind of "sex." I don't know what you would call it, maybe just erotic fetish "sexualized" activity? I put the "sex" or "sexualized" in there because for the slave or sub of this inclination, such a thing is erotic/sexual. What I was saying, and I purposely exaggerated my analogy or example just to emphasize a point, was the I've gotten the impression some of the dominant women, apparently into BDSM, would have a young stud building a home from scratch, with hammer and nails, and still deny him a smack on the ass for months or longer under the hustle, "You're always thinking about, 'me, me, me,' and not about your dom!" In that case, "game recognizes game." All that said, I was surprised to log on to collarme and see the profile of a dom who doesn't seem to be adverse to males with the degree of fetish slavery I have. And by the way, I'm not against doms making their subs or slave toil and labor (e.g. paint the exterior of her home, rent ass out for domestic labor, or even sell him/her for sex and profit). That was not my point. I'll try and be open minded though to the idea or possibility that my impressions are largely inacurate. Oh! And I hope no one takes my comments about licking boots and sucking cock being morally corrupt as an attack on the genuinely bisexual or homosexual. I was speaking more in terms of both me (meaning my own shortcomings) and in terms of submitting to being a male slave that does those things. However, I tend to think not all corruptions are equal in scale nor public harm. My belief is that butchering people or cannibalism and other viscious things are far worse. Kind of like a heterosexual man brutally beating his wife. I view that as waaaaaay worse than two homosexual guys going down on each other - or possibly even worse than me on knees and a leash.

Nikitaa -> RE: New Boys (1/26/2009 10:42:36 PM)
I just registered and I am surprised because the messages I am reading from my collarme mail do not sound correct. Many of the men send message telling me about what I will do with them and about what I will do to them. I think dominatrix and submissive are suppose to discuss the rules for the game with each other together. I do not think submissives are suppose to order dominatrix how to play with them. I do not know if the men are not aware they are doing wrong or if the men are aware they are wrong but they do not care. What was the question? I think I missed the question.

UPSG -> RE: New Boys (1/26/2009 10:52:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Just for your information, the "story" that most dommes are not willing to re-create are the generations of women who have lived and died in sexual service to men. That's been going on for thousands of years now, and yeah--some of us are pretty much done with it. I do acknowledge women have often suffered unjustly. I do not condone that. But to be fair, I've done a fair amount of historical reading. All history written or filmed is largely fictionalized at best and propaganda at worse is largely. Kind of like documentaries, they are almost always propaganda, if one has ever taken a class in art and or film they will know this. Men have suffered as much as women in this world. There were plenty of Morena, Mulatta, Black, and White women throughout the "New World" that owned slaves - that includes males slaves. Some of them were extraordinarily cruel. Slavery for the Slavs in the Middle East and well damn near all slavery for male slaves throughout the Eastern world from Ethiopia to China meant having your nuts or penis cut off or both. Males have been sold into sexual slavery since time immemorial. Vlad the Impaler and his younger brother served the Turks in slavery as boys. His younger brother was put into the Sultans male harem, and as a little boy sexually serviced the Sultan it is said. So, yeah, Vlad had a little chip on his shoulder. [sm=lol.gif] Many boys throughout Italian and Sicilian history, supposedly, were sexually victimized. In some Sicilian mines the men and boys, I have read, toiled bare as naked, and it was fairly common for some of the men to sodomize the young boys. Leonardo da Vinci as an adult was supposedly fucking a boy that I think was around the age of 7. But then that was common occurance among Italian Rennisance painters. Almost all of them choose one or more boy apprentice to favor above the other boy apprentices and work the bed (sodomize them). The images of some of these boys can still be seen. Caravagio and one or more boys he was screwing he who has immortalized in paint. They are the ones that look like "sissies." His women - usually for religious paintings - were almost always Prostitutes of Italy, well known prostitutes. They had no pimp. However, one might say these young boy and young men (they varied widely in age) were being pimped by Caravagio, Da Vinci, and other painters. There were plenty of male prostitutes in Italy too. Especially in cities like Naples - but throughout the Papal States were both male and female prostition was legalized (to certain quarters however). Naples supposedly invented the modern day Drag Queen or Tranvestite, back in the 17th century or so. Male labor, historically, has been as exploited as female labor (children arguably had it worse than the adults - especially in 19th century factories). There is no way anyone is going to convince me some woman married to a 19th century middle class lawyer, was being more grueling expolited in labor and life than the poor American joker that was dieing of lung disease in some mine on the East Coast with his life and being indebted to the company store. Both poor women and poor men had it hard. Sitting behind an office desk as a wage earner is relatively new to human history. You want exploitation that grueling? Go work as a masonary tender, handling 3 or 4 masons, when its seasonally 30 or 20 degrees outside, lifting 12 inch block one in each hand, and moving a full wheelbarrow over bumpy ground.

UPSG -> RE: New Boys (1/26/2009 11:06:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OttersSwim I think Ms. Shakti has the right of it UPSG... Eh, from Ms. Shakti's posts (not just in this thread) I can tell she is touched with more than just a little misandry. Which is fine, we all have our own personal pasts that shape us. I'm cognizant of at least one factor in my childhood history that has helped lend me towards the particular fetish I have (the rest of it could just be all my own personality, or whatever the hell, I'm not a psychologist or sex expert). However, it never cease to strike me with irony and a little comedy, how both media and women (generally speaking) claim how cruel and brutal having a husband or life long male partner is, yet those same two sources turn right back around and bemoan how there are so few husbands today. [sm=lol.gif] The news never tires of reporting how "Black women have no men to marry" as though it a major tragedy. If marriage is torture and enslavement, than having no husband should mean bliss! and freedom! Yet, women still search for the evil man, and, ironically, they want him to labor and bring wealth (i.e. what men were doing for centuries declared as horrific cruelty to women instead of making women become the sole bread winners). But I'm getting off on a rant here. So, respectfully, Otter, we might just have disagree with other in this one small area. Does not mean I hold a grudge against you.

Lockit -> RE: New Boys (1/26/2009 11:14:37 PM)
[sm=Groaner.gif] Too late for this... Gotta tackle this tomorrow... god...

Vendaval -> RE: New Boys (1/26/2009 11:27:46 PM)
Hello Otter, Attitude is everything. A person can have little or no experience and still be pleasant and pleasing in their approach. The same is true of learning any new set of skills.

mostgorgeousme -> RE: New Boys (1/27/2009 7:07:49 AM)
Excuse me but no offense to you or anything like that but ShaktiSama is not a misandry. She has an awesome relationship with a really cool man. In addition to that, she has helped a number of male subs with her very excellent advise. So for you to call her out for misandry is wrong. ShakiSama likes men, nice men with class. Just because she calls out the rest of the jerk for what they are, does not mean she dislikes all men. There just happens to be alot of asshole men with egos that make them have chips on their backs and she calls a spade a spade. And one more thing, women have suffered because of men for a long time. And when you say men have suffered too, it is mostly BECAUSE OF other MEN.

OttersSwim -> RE: New Boys (1/27/2009 8:20:33 AM)
Once again UPSG...look again. There is no evidence of misandry in Ms. Shakti's profile or posts. In my view, you got it wrong again dude...[8\|]

thetammyjo -> RE: New Boys (1/27/2009 8:20:39 AM)
Anyone not of the elites of any society has routinely been used by those in power. That seems to be part of the human equation, fair or not. Within those classes though women, on average, were given less legal, social, and economic power so in that sense yes women as a group have been more oppressed than men. That's history and that's now for some people in some places. There is nothing to get even about or even angry about. All anyone can realistically do is to work now for greater equality if they believe in it in the future. You can't change the past and I'd say you can't change the now; one can only change the future.

ShaktiSama -> RE: New Boys (1/27/2009 10:21:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UPSG Eh, from Ms. Shakti's posts (not just in this thread) I can tell she is touched with more than just a little misandry. No, not really. I don't hate men. I loathe patriarchy, but I am able to distinguish between men and patriarchy, although I recognize that some men cannot. Men are people who happen to have a penis attached--I like people and I like penises, so no problem there. Patriarchy is an oppressive system of gender-biased social, political and economic relations. This, I have a problem with. Especially because one of the primary features of patriarchy around the world is that women are always the group that suffers from the least opportunity and greatest poverty, economically speaking. It is because patriarchy is so common that prostitution is the oldest "profession" in the world--it has always been one of the few economic leveling mechanisms available to women, to get access to necessary resources for themselves and their loved ones. As for your weeping and moaning about the oppressive aspects of working-class labor? You're right, babydoll--poverty sucks. But women work too, believe it or not, often in lamentable and murderous conditions both historically and in the present. The only difference between female labor and male labor is not the lack of dignity or safety--it's that women are always paid less, respected less, and additionally expected to live in servitude to men in their personal relationships. It was servitude in personal relationships that I was referring to in my earlier post, despite your attempt to change the subject. Labor is a class issue, not a gender issue. Nice try, but try educating yourself a little better before you haul out the violins on that one. As for the "media" crying about a lack of husbands or suitable male partners? shrug I am not the "media", and mistaking me for the "media" is a grave error. I don't really give a rat's ass what the "media" is crying about this week: I regard my country's newspapers and television outlets as a giant Corporate Lying Machine, and I unplugged myself from that matrix about three years ago. Even back when I used to pay attention to that garbage, though, I always thought that the majority of "women's media" from talk shows to magazines were horribly useless, misleading, mind-numbing(dumbing) and soul-destroying crap. Same is true of men's media. From my perspective: there is no lack of good men in the world. This particular thread is about being able to tell the difference between good men who are submissive or masochistic and just happen to be newbies--a little confused, unsure of themselves and perhaps burdened by mis-education--and people who are just pricks. The difference from my point of view is that good men who are new can pretty much learn everything they need to know to be a successful submissive in about six months of reading this forum, chatting in chat rooms and attending munches and public events. Pricks cannot succeed nearly so easily. Even when presented with the same opportunities as a good man, they will continually fail and continually learn only the wrong lessons and continually blame everyone but themselves for their failures. It doesn't take long to learn to be a good submissive. But it takes a VERY long time to un-learn how to be a prick.

Wickad -> RE: New Boys (1/27/2009 12:42:56 PM)
book marking this thread

MsDDom -> RE: New Boys (1/27/2009 1:25:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mummyman321 I cannot speak for other and would never try to. I can only speak of my own experiences. When I first got involved in the BDSM lifestyle/scene I know I like it but had no idea why I liked it and what I wanted from it. I think it took me every bit of 5 years really to be able to answer the questions: Am I a Dom or a sub?, why do I like being sub?, what am I seeking in Domme? and how to I want to be involved in the lifestyle (24/7?, publice play?, behind closed doors only?m etc). So from my perspective, those who have just entered into the lifestyle, I do not believe know what they are seeking yet. And maybe some learn much faster than others. For me it took every bit of 5 years to fully understand my wants, desires, and needs. i like this response...it speaks volumes to a person doing self-analysis on the "whys". and i know that not all will take the same path, but i think trying to find out a little, minute even, information on desires goes a long why when one decided to approach someone. i don't have a problem w/ new boys (blank canvas i call them); i like those willing and open to learning. i agree w/ DrkJ that there are some basics and there some that are more concerned with the mental fantasy (online) than making a connect to see if u even click on a basic human level. that does get old...and some "boys" want to snap b/c u r trying to guide them on a very small level. i feel if a boy is unwilling to at minimum approach as an intelligent human (even w/ some guidance), then i can't help him. we were all new at some point...but how we handled it was the key.

Lockit -> RE: New Boys (1/27/2009 1:51:07 PM)
There are so many things to consider... from figuring out 'self', accepting, learning, adjusting and exploring that I think we all could write books on how we evolve or what we thought or go through. To mix it all with people coming from maybe similar places at different stages and from different personalities and live's.. can be confusing. It doesn't get boring that is for sure! The thing is... some will have less in life skills or social skills for whatever reasons... don't get me started on that one! lol When one acts like a social idiot... that is when some of us get upset. None of us were born yesterday and none of us were left in a jungle with no social contact. We should know a bit about society and human beings and getting on with them. It isn't the new person who might be going through some evolution in their life that is a problem or not accepted or even judged as some might feel they are. It is more how they present themselves and their social skills. One can be shy and still have social skills. One can be many things and still not act out on sexual behavior or selfishness and when they do... there is a lack of all sorts of things going on... don't get me started on that one either! lol Some may fumble around and be a bit afraid... and some may be misunderstood and might even anger or frustrate someone... but if they can't figure out what they are doing wrong... that shouldn't be blamed on those that do on either side of the kneel. We are all grown ups. Some are rude and clueless and I feel that is often times a choice. Some.. are willing to learn what they don't know and don't come in shouting about what it's all about with an edge of sarcasim and attitude. Other's... at least use social skills to get through until they have a more secure footing.

mostgorgeousme -> RE: New Boys (1/28/2009 9:38:34 AM)
His strength. It takes great strength to make sacrifices. All submissive men work hard for their ladies and make great sacrifices and I am proud of his strength. His selflessness. Stingy men are a turn off. Generous men are a turn on. It's in my nature to view men who are giving as a turn on. It's what seems natural to me. His class. Submissive men carry themselves with class and I am proud of his social graces. He is kind, polite, graceful and dignified. And he walks with his head held high. Confident though not arrogant.

hardbodysub -> RE: New Boys (1/28/2009 9:57:20 AM)
quote: It takes great strength to make sacrifices. All submissive men work hard for their ladies and make great sacrifices ... Submissive men carry themselves with class ... He is kind, polite, graceful and dignified. And he walks with his head held high. Sometimes, sometimes not. Any time you say "all", there's a good chance you're wrong. There is more than one type of submissive. You've written about only one.

mostgorgeousme -> RE: New Boys (1/28/2009 10:19:50 AM)
I meant this for the thread what are you most proud of of your sub. I realize there are sub men out there with chips on their shoulders.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875