|
Aswad -> RE: Is everyone anal ? (12/25/2009 10:06:49 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
Personally, my dominance spreads (no pun intended) a bit wider in expanse than simply to who's penetrating who.
While I'm inclined to to agree with you, it's a factor. Akasha, I believe, commented on this in the femdom section, to a stack of indignant replies that somehow largely managed to fail to argue the point beyond jerking of knees, despite the volume of said stack. You mount a horse. The horse won't ensaddle you. Equivalently, you aren't encunted, enarsed or otherwise relegated to the passive mode. Conversely, if she is riding you, that relegates you to the passive, with her in control. Suck vs mouthfuck. And so forth.
Of course, context matters, as I've noted elsewhere. I'm not closed to the idea of taking it up the rear, and rarely do a thing I haven't at least experimented with the other side of, though I'm fairly certain I'd prefer riding. I've also got a bit of a thing for feet, but my mindspace is one of physical intimacy on par with kissing or coddling, with a side order of consumption/hunger to it (nothing directs the mind quite so readily to ye olde dolcett, for some reason); there's no mental component of submission in it. Even so, the symbol has a default value, and it is the context that makes it something else.
If you see a swastika, it's going to take context to avoid assuming it's associated with something Nazi-flavored. And when someone is penetrated, it's going to take a similar amount of context to reverse the associations of the roles. In short, while the default association of a symbol needn't be the right connotation in every context, that doesn't change the fact that there is such a default. For penetration, the connotation is still that of an active penetrator, and a passive or subdued vessel.
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
