Defending "online" and "phone" play

Defending "online" and "phone" play (Full Version)

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

Message

AAkasha -> Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 2:08:43 PM)
I've been doing BDSM ever since I started dating. I've never had a boyfriend I didn't tie up, dominate, tease, torment and seduce to enjoy my sadomasochistic games. I've never seen online or phone play as a "replacement" for real life BDSM. However, unlike a lot of people, I see it is another outlet that can be extremely effective, exciting, erotic -- and real. People that say "phone" or long distance domination is not real maybe haven't experienced it in the way I have. Whenever I talk about phone/long distance play, the immediate response is "I don't do that, because I prefer REAL LIFE, real time BDSM." Well, sure, so do I. It's not a replacement for real life, it's a supplement. It's an extra. It's a bonus. Talking on the phone to a submissive or sending him email "commands" or talking on instant messenger, telling him "what to do" -- yeah, ok, that's pretty one dimensional. Describing a BDSM scene in text and referring to oneself is also silly, ie, "Mistress is now walking to you and placing a collar around your neck." (then the guy types, "/me kneels head and bows") -- ok, yeah, LAME. What I am talking about is making a man do things live while I listen. I had a lot of really intense phone relationships, and one of them led to the real life relationship I am in now. I sent him a digital camera back when they were fat and bulky and could record a 15 second .avi and that was a huge deal; now, cameras are cheaper and can do even more. I'd make him photograph acts he did for me while we talked live, and then he'd send the photographs a few moments later. Eventually, we evolved into .avi files, I got him a better camera, and the clips got longer -- 30 seconds on average, having to use a larger server to FTP the files. I'd make him submit to acts and film them, then send them to me. I never had much interest in a web cam because I liked clips I could watch over..and over...and over...and over again. I'd have him do some acts 3, 4 or 5 times for me until it was just perfect. I have literally dozens of CDs labeled here, all with photographs and videos of his various acts of submission. I'd send him toys in boxes and make him open them up while being recorded. I'd send him my various underthings as teasing tools in each package so he had something to look forward to in addition to whatever the latest bondage or pain toy was. To me, this kind of interaction is much more dynamic and 'real' than traditional cybersex or phone sex, and shows that you CAN have someone submit to acts and not just "talk about the fantasy of submitting to an act." There were things he didn't want to do, things that required seduction and coaxing and making him record them at the same time was a huge test. I can't count the number of orgasms I had while viewing these videos. I still view them today. They are hot. Is this a replacement for in the flesh, real life play? Hell no! I was doing this stuff while in between having real life sessions that included all the dildo-ass fucking, face sitting, paddling, making out, pussy worship and spooning. There's nothing that could replace that. However, I will say that those phone/digital camera sessions with him were BETTER than some of the REAL LIFE sessions I had with subs that were not my type. It just depends on the chemistry. What are ways you've made long distance/phone/camera play more real? Given the choice of NO play, or only phone/etc, which would you pick? Akasha

RiotGirl -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 2:12:31 PM)
Liked your post and i can see where you're coming from and it even sounds abit interesting actually. Cant answer your question as i've never done phone or cyber stuff.

Nendarye -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 2:14:35 PM)
I would have to agree with you Miss Aakasha. When I first met Master, because of the distance between us, all we had was the phone, the camera, and the web cam...though Master disliked the use of the web cam also and never requested it to be turned on. He was the kind that liked to talk to others on the phone...he had a wonderful 'phone' presence, if you can imagine such a thing. I remember him telling me once that after 3 phone conversations with me, he could hear the difference in my voice when he asked something of me, no matter how mundane it was. And yes, as we got to know each other better, he would ask me to do things over the phone for him...so that he could hear me doing them. I look back very fondly on our conversations that we used to have on the phone. They were truly special.

michaelGA -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 2:18:46 PM)
this sounds like fun. where do i sign up? <WEG>

AAkasha -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 2:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelGA this sounds like fun. where do i sign up? <WEG> I'm always looking for new phone/digital camera "slaves" -- the problem is, there's such a "less than" stereotype attached to the concept of "phone/online only" play that advertising for such a partner is pretty futile. I could probably get a few really good prospects IF I advertised "real life after phone/online" but that is something I cannot guarantee will happen. I also can't guarantee it WON'T -- but I wouldn't want a submissive contacting me with the hopes of becoming my real life, personal slave/partner only to find out that really it would only be online/phone. Akasha

doll -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 2:35:18 PM)
I have to agree that it sounds fun. I have had an online relationship that I found very rewarding. I think that online is a good way to evolve into real life. So, keep on enjoying.

LthrdWolf -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 3:07:49 PM)
Then there are also those who are 'differently abled' & cyber &/or phone Bdsm whether occasional or ongoing,is one of their few (if Only for some) connection/s to the lifestyle. LthrdWolf ...I agree,let's not be quite so harsh.It smacks of my kink & experience is better &/or more acceptable then yours.We all have to start somewhere,& some are just lucky enough to be able to move fully into (consistent) 'real time' (if in fact they have not started out there,) while others might not be able to do so -for whatever reasons.

BalletBob -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 3:16:38 PM)
Hi Aakasha. I couln't agree with you more. I had a Misrtress, and we had some RT Sessions and most of the rest was Cyber Sessions. MADAM is too busy anymore, so I joined Collarme in the hopes of finding a replacement for MADADM. I do agree with you that there is nothing as good as a lve session, but if that can't be done, then a Cyber one is great. I tto have a Digital Camer and Web Cam and MADAM use to give me ORDERS, and She could either see them as it happened or I could take a pic and send her the results. We had fun...me because I was pleasing her, and her becuase she was Tormenting me.....LOL Most people here though, think there is something wrong or disgusting with Cyber. I didn't use the word Cyber Sex, since that wasn't any part of what we did, unlesss it was MADAM making me do things to myself.....giggles. Thanks so much for your POSTS ! Now I know I stil have a chance. Wish I was En Pointe, BalletBob

krikket -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 3:41:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha Given the choice of NO play, or only phone/etc, which would you pick? Akasha i've been in both situations and took the phone play over no play simply because it keeps the possibilities alive, and..if you both have a good sense of humor, it can be enormously funny... good luck.. jimini

Misstoyou -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 4:21:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha People that say "phone" or long distance domination is not real maybe haven't experienced it in the way I have. Akasha I have experienced it the way you have, and while it was entertaining, the problem was the relationship became "real" to the phone/cam partner, but they were never "real" to me. Perhaps it's a failing on my part... But in any event, that is completely off the table now. I won't settle for less than a tangible submissive.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 4:49:53 PM)
Actually with my boyfriend being long distance, we don't do any phone or cyber play. But with my Boston partner, we do phone sex and cyber sex fairly regularly. For me it just depends on the connection and the energy of the relationship- where we want to go. The problem that happens most OFTEN with cyber/phone play is that when it's ALL the person has ever experienced, they get very unrealistic understandings and expectations of what play is OFFLINE and in REAL LIFE. As long as the understandings of what the differences are, what the realities are and what realistic expectations there are...go for it.

cloudboy -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 5:35:04 PM)
quote: People that say "phone" or long distance domination is not real maybe haven't experienced it in the way I have. I liked what John Warren had to say in one of his essays, "Family Ties Keynote Address." See below: >If I had my way, I'd have a red light flash whenever anyone said, "Real." If there is a case for a category of kinky fight'n words, that one leads it. All too often, it's used as a psychological club with the implication "I'm real; you aren't." To me, 'real' or 'not real' is all too often a thing of the soul, and these old eyes aren't good enough to peer that deep into someone's soul. Unless yours are, I suggest that 'real' is a word to use with care and not a small measure of trepidation. One of the main battle grounds of the real/unreal conflict is the online world. Now, I don't know anyone who holds that an online flogging has any correlation with one where whip actually meets flesh and you can taste the tears you kiss away. However, domination and submission has strong and possibly overwhelming components that don�t depend on whips, rope and cuffs. They are, as I say, things of the soul. And things of the soul are deeply personal. Who, for example,would argue that a nun, a Bride of Christ, a woman who has accepted a master that, outside of the Second Coming, she will never meet on this Earth, isn�t completely honest in her dedication. After all, nun in her cloister can, perhaps, be in greater ecstasy that a priestess of Pan during the Spring Rites. If someone tells me he or she feels submission to someone who is, in effect, only lines of type on a screen, who am I to say �< http://www.lovingdominant.org/Keynote.html I think he gives you some validation here, and I agree with his point.

michaelGA -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 6:40:47 PM)
that is understandable, Ma'am. as distance is am obsticle, online/phone would probably be all i, myself, could offer

LessThanKate -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 6:49:53 PM)
I agree wholeheartedly. Online/phone play can be an awesome springboard to something more physically satisfying. It's a fabulous bonus that, IMO, often gets really discredited.

MsIncognito -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 10:30:26 PM)
Given the choice of phone play/online play or no play I would pick no play. I'm a very tactile person and for me not only is play about actually experiencing the sensations but physical touch is ESSENTIAL to me in a relationship. Physical touch is one of the main ways I experience love and feel loved and that just cannot be accomplished for me with text or over the phone. When I first got internet access back in '96 I quickly found chat rooms and discovered cyber sex. Initially it was really thrilling and exciting but after a few months the novelty wore off and I lost interest in it. It lacked the essential component of physical touch. I'm very much an 'actions speak louder than words' type of person and I guess that is reflected in my preferences in this regard.

MistressSassy66 -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 10:57:38 PM)
I dont have anything against "phone/online" play. I just am not interested in it. I find it to be tedious and boring at times. I'm a hands on type of person,anything other than RL and I'm left unfilled. I need to pinch the nipple after clothepins are removed,doing that online or on the phone is impossible,sure I can hear and or see them...but it doesnt compare to feeling in the air of being right there.

Arpig -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/4/2006 11:10:54 PM)
My Pet and i have been living far apart for most of the time we have known eachother, so yes online & phone play have been something I have done. And I do love listening on the phone when she comes [:)]

pollux -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/5/2006 6:46:06 AM)
Let me preface this post by saying it's probably not going too far overboard to say that Akasha could recite the ABCs over a tin can & string telephone and still drive most subs -- hell, probably most men of whatever inclination -- into orbit. So, I hope she doesn't take this post personally. I've experienced both sides of cyber-play -- I've been a bottom a few times and I've also dabbled with cyber-topping. But my profile says, r/t only, no cyber, and here's why. For me, as a male sub, cyber-bottoming sucks. I know this will sound very un-PC coming from a CollarMe-self-ID'd sub, but the problem is that there is just nothing rewarding in it for me. Yeah, yeah, I know....who cares what you need, it's all about the Domme [:'(]... For me a large part of the BDSM dynamic is the presence of the Domme -- her tangible presence. On this I am firmly in MsIcognito's camp. That is HUGE HUGE HUGE. Doing things to myself, or photographing myself, while she's not there, even if it's at her command? ....yuck. Don't care for that at all. I need to see her, feel her, smell her, hear her voice, and experience the energy of her dominance in the room. Now, I know some guys get off on the possibility of receiving a pair of panties in the mail or whatever, but that kind of thing just doesn't work real well as an incentive/reward for me. I guess my sub/bottom kinks just don't run in a way that seems to work, long-distance. shrugs Now, cyber-topping, OTOH, was a blast and I surprised myself silly how much fun that was. Often, if I'm talking to a vanilla woman online and we're in the early stages of flirting or maybe setting up a date, I will drop a kinky hint just to see how she reacts. I try to keep it context-free just to see if she ignores it, or runs with it -- either as a top or a bottom. A lot of times, they pick up on it very enthusiastically (usually -- but not always -- as a sub/bottom) and often things get lots more interesting and fun from there. So, if forced to choose between phone/cyber only, and no play, my answer is a qualified "no play" -- as a bottom. But playing as a cyber-top would be fine.

caitlyn -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/5/2006 6:48:31 AM)
When you're young and first start dating, there is that moment where you decide to sit next to the person in the booth instead of across from them. There is that moment when you decide to hold hands for the first time. Once you have kissed, sitting next to them in a booth or holding hands, may not be such a big deal, but it's still enjoyable. Once you have had a hot, steamy make out in the back of a car, kissing, booth sitting and holding hands are not as big a deal, but still enjoyable. Once you have slept together, the hot, steamy make out, kissing, booth sitting, holding hands are no as ... etc ... It's been a long time since I've done cyber sex, and I can't honestly say I have ever done phone sex ... but the memory of cyber sex is a lot like sitting in the booth next to someone for the first time, or kissing for the first time. I liked it ... it was fun at the time ... and I can't even say for sure that I wouldn't do it now, if the moment was right. You don't really need to defend, what is nobody else's business anyway. If you did it ... it was real.

RavenMuse -> RE: Defending "online" and "phone" play (2/5/2006 7:00:49 AM)
Whilst I have nothing against it I simply don't get the attraction when that is all there is going to be. I have done elements of it, but in those cases it was someone I was involved in an LDR with. When it was said or written what she was doing I could link that to the memory of what she felt like, how she moved, the sounds she made and the feelings involved. It gave me a conection that I needed to let there be some enjoyment in the experience. Without that conection I simply don't have the interest. Even with that connection it, for me, was a very poor substitute, but if it floats your boat, go for it :)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125