RE: Masters, do you like it...

RE: Masters, do you like it... (Full Version)

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

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/18/2010 9:35:37 PM)
Wow, suggesting littlewonder isnt a marvelous creature... which i whole heartedly disagree with.

Arturas -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/18/2010 9:59:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Wow, suggesting littlewonder isnt a marvelous creature... which i whole heartedly disagree with. I think you sell yourself much to short, littlewonder. You are no doubt a marvelous woman. But, point well taken. The women I have known are marvelous creatures. One of their amazing talents with me... Happy? Arturas

tazzygirl -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/18/2010 10:05:43 PM)
What you are still saying is that a woman is a marvelous creature if she knows how to touch you. There are many men who believe a woman should only touch when commanded, and then only as commanded, and to them those women are marvelous and wouldnt consider a woman who touches freely as anything but disrespectful. Generalizations are a bitch. I can see the case for both sides.

DMFParadox -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/18/2010 10:13:08 PM)
Yep; can't live with generalizations, can't live without them. What we need to do is get more precise language going. Though the moment it happens, somebody will surely fuck it sideways.

tazzygirl -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/18/2010 10:22:03 PM)
We have that more precise language ability. Some chose not to use it.

Arturas -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/18/2010 10:24:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl What you are still saying is that a woman is a marvelous creature if she knows how to touch you. There are many men who believe a woman should only touch when commanded, and then only as commanded, and to them those women are marvelous and wouldnt consider a woman who touches freely as anything but disrespectful. Generalizations are a bitch. I can see the case for both sides. Nope. What I said was "the women I have known are marvelous creatures". NEW SENTENCE. "One of their amazing talents...". To address your unstated question: I don't believe my woman should only touch when commanded; how boring that would be, a robot girl who only responds on command. I should also point out that it is I whom you stay up late tonight miss quoting when I said " women are marvelous creatures". BTW, I also do not assign any condition to that. Rich, poor, tall, short, wide, narrow, spontaneously touchy or only as a mindless robot when commanded; it matters not, I believe they are all marvelous creatures. This includes my most marvelous star, littlewonder and the up late tazzygirl. Arturas

tazzygirl -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/18/2010 10:26:05 PM)
lol... point taken! im off to bed.

DMFParadox -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/18/2010 10:49:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas To address your unstated question: I don't believe my woman should only touch when commanded; how boring that would be, a robot girl who only responds on command. Hm. Have to say I disagree with the boringness of such a woman, but, hear me out. There is a certain kind of woman who gets all soft when you just do things, and have no expectations of her getting all touchy-feely when she's not being used. I like those women. A quick exerpt from a profile that got my attention (identifying text removed): quote: I want to feel owned in a way that is often about my main worth to you is my physical looks and sexually turning you on and pleasing you totally based on your desires, whims on your own time table. I love the thought of a man so comfortable knowing he owns me and knows the word no, a frown or some passive aggressive behaviors will not come from me that he can simply indulge in carnal, kinky or any other type of desires with me when I am in his presence. Men who need to feel to know or ask was it good for me or was that what I wanted in a moment do not get me To women like this, often touching you uninvited is like saying, 'look at me! I'm signalling you that I want you to touch me!' Some women get comforted by being able to touch you when they can; it's a privilege they appreciate, and it can be validating to the Dom, too. I'm ok with that. Other women, especially among some of the very attractive women, are used to the idea that attention from them will almost always result in attention to them. To them, it's more validating that you'll just do them without that signal. And a woman who's just there, to be used whenever, and makes it known by not touching you until you 'use' her, can be a very special treasure. Far from being a robot, them showing initiative is almost insulting to the dynamic inside their own minds, because it assumes that you need them to touch you before you'll be comfortable touching them. I can totally get how that would be undesirable to them, and that bit about "knows the word no, a frown or some passive aggressive behaviors will not come from me" is pretty damned hot in practice, if you're confident enough that you do know you won't get a no most of the time regardless of the woman.

CaringandReal -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/19/2010 5:31:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox Other women, especially among some of the very attractive women, are used to the idea that attention from them will almost always result in attention to them. To them, it's more validating that you'll just do them without that signal. Nods. True, in my experience. quote: And a woman who's just there, to be used whenever, and makes it known by not touching you until you 'use' her, can be a very special treasure. Far from being a robot, them showing initiative is almost insulting to the dynamic inside their own minds, because it assumes that you need them to touch you before you'll be comfortable touching them. I can totally get how that would be undesirable to them, I think you're describing a submissive woman who objectifies herself. To some degree (which varies with the woman), she sees herself more as a object for someone else's use and pleasure than as an acting participant with her own needs or desires. quote: and that bit about "knows the word no, a frown or some passive aggressive behaviors will not come from me" is pretty damned hot in practice, if you're confident enough that you do know you won't get a no most of the time regardless of the woman. Hot, but also very hard to put consistently into practice over a lengthy span of time. As I'm sure you know, people's self-descriptions, particularly on "sales literature," do not always match their actual abilities. But a submissive who writes something like this may be describing how she would, ideally, like to be, and if her desires are sincere that is a potential you can work with.

Arturas -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/19/2010 8:00:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas To address your unstated question: I don't believe my woman should only touch when commanded; how boring that would be, a robot girl who only responds on command. Hm. Have to say I disagree with the boringness of such a woman, but, hear me out. There is a certain kind of woman who gets all soft when you just do things, and have no expectations of her getting all touchy-feely when she's not being used. I like those women. A quick exerpt from a profile that got my attention (identifying text removed): quote: I want to feel owned in a way that is often about my main worth to you is my physical looks and sexually turning you on and pleasing you totally based on your desires, whims on your own time table. I love the thought of a man so comfortable knowing he owns me and knows the word no, a frown or some passive aggressive behaviors will not come from me that he can simply indulge in carnal, kinky or any other type of desires with me when I am in his presence. Men who need to feel to know or ask was it good for me or was that what I wanted in a moment do not get me To women like this, often touching you uninvited is like saying, 'look at me! I'm signalling you that I want you to touch me!' Some women get comforted by being able to touch you when they can; it's a privilege they appreciate, and it can be validating to the Dom, too. I'm ok with that. Other women, especially among some of the very attractive women, are used to the idea that attention from them will almost always result in attention to them. To them, it's more validating that you'll just do them without that signal. And a woman who's just there, to be used whenever, and makes it known by not touching you until you 'use' her, can be a very special treasure. Far from being a robot, them showing initiative is almost insulting to the dynamic inside their own minds, because it assumes that you need them to touch you before you'll be comfortable touching them. I can totally get how that would be undesirable to them, and that bit about "knows the word no, a frown or some passive aggressive behaviors will not come from me" is pretty damned hot in practice, if you're confident enough that you do know you won't get a no most of the time regardless of the woman. I appreciate your position on this but do you really suggest a woman is one way or the other? I find these marvelous creatures are multi faceted like diamonds, don't you really?

DMFParadox -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/19/2010 5:50:05 PM)
Yeah, some women are blondes, some brunettes. No one is all things to all people; there are limits to how many facets a 'diamond' can hold. For that matter, a diamond is one of the most static, change-resistant materials in existence; and viewing a different facet of one does not tend to change the major characteristics of the diamond itself. That analogy's always bugged me a little. Then again, if you're using it to create a light show, you can have dramatic change by rotating facets; but that's a bit unwieldy for an Aesop. Life experiences can change how women relate to the world, but you'll go mad trying to fit all of them into one mold, even a multifaceted one.

DMFParadox -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/19/2010 6:13:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CaringandReal I think you're describing a submissive woman who objectifies herself. To some degree (which varies with the woman), she sees herself more as a object for someone else's use and pleasure than as an acting participant with her own needs or desires. ...kind of... yes and no. I'm struggling to explain this, so bear with me. There's no sense of not being an active participant with a girl like this. Her participation is in being present, attentive, and willing. It's passive...ish. Partly because she's got the charisma to draw attention no matter what she does, so it's like she actively selects for the men who are dynamic, fearless, and have a sense of internal power, by being receptive to it and trying not to muddy the water by moving around too much. When the 'prey' you're hunting moves much faster than you do, you don't try to catch up. You watch their movement and position yourself to be 'caught' by them. Consider this perspective, then consider yourself as a woman with this perspective, and you'll get part of the idea I've got in my mind of this phenomena. Extend it by considering that you, as this hunter of fast prey, are identifying your prey by how fast they move. If they're unhealthy, they are sluggish and hesitant, and they'll make you sick if you catch them. If they're fast, they'll get to you first, as long as you don't move. If you reach out then your ability to determine healthy from sluggish becomes blurred and muddy. A hunting analogy is poor, because it doesn't factor in how this dynamic works when you have to choose and re-evaluate the same partner over a length of time... Dancing might work for that. Some women don't mind taking the lead. Some women prefer it. Some are dancers so good that they can make anyone else good; and because of this, to find a partner that challenges them, lifts them up and reminds them of why they love dancing, they must be passive, and allow that partner to show themselves. They then give that partner the lead and never try to take it back, just to see how long they can just dance in bliss, without worrying about what step to take next.

masterlink65 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/22/2010 6:45:42 AM)
Why is a slave always a she or her on this forum? OP, i allow my alpha slave to touch me. I allow my alpha to speak and make eye contact. The part time, and secondary slaves are not allowed any of this.

Focus50 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/22/2010 12:16:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: masterlink65 Why is a slave always a she or her on this forum? Errrrm, they're not - duhhh! But you are aware all posts are personal opinions posted from individual perspective? And that it's 'Ask a Master', not 'Ask a Gay Master'...? Or Mistresses (with male slaves) outnumber Masters. And how about that heteros outnumber gays by a looooong margin, ta boot. You're a minority - learn to accept it. Focus.

ricken -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/22/2010 3:11:23 PM)
Well, I haven't worked my way up the BDSM ladder yet, I'm not a master, I'm a Top. But I'll answer any way HELLS YEAH!!! She can touch me and get me all kinds a worked up. As a matter it's expected of her...

LadyHugs -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/22/2010 5:48:27 PM)
Slavegirl537, For me, my body is off limits--especially when in public and or in a high-protocol situation, such as conventions, formal dinner, meetings, etc. I'll determine when I wish to be more touchy-feely. I will also control the level and span of time. A slave knows when in any collar of mine, sexual stimulation by them is forbidden until I approve and, certainly behind closed doors in private. Slave has to play with my sexual 'time clock' --not theirs. But, I do know slaves have their sexual needs so, that will be taken care of. To manipulate me into their sexual needs at their timing and choice, can cause me to release them from my collar. To do this in public is a quick way to find them on the curb without a collar--this is one area that makes me furious. Just some thoughts. Respectfully, Lady Hugs

masterlink65 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/22/2010 6:19:12 PM)
focus,,, slave is NOT a gender specific term. slave, has nothing to do with being gay or straight. a slave is a slave, male or female. that is the fact that needs to learn to be accepted. DUH

WolfyMontgomery -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/22/2010 6:26:38 PM)
It's more we all answer through our own points of view, and since a majority of us are female slaves, or male Masters, we answer in the ways we recognize as familiar to us. I say she when regarding slaves because I am female and a slave, and that's what I'm familiar with - it's not to say that there are no male slaves though, just from my point of view as a female slave. I can't answer for the other sex, since I can't think like them or have experience in things like ball torture, or manly bits (beyond giving oral lol), or lack of boobs. Same goes for other people - they answer with what they have experience in. If they don't have experience with male slaves, they're not going to answer with that viewpoint in mind.

imdmb -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/22/2010 7:40:55 PM)
my headslave is also my pillow and encouraged to caress me during the night because it serves me better that way, she can sooth me and calm me down like if im having a bad dream or im just uncomfortable then she can try and make me feel better by stroking my head (or whatever else comes into mind) yeah, i know its badly worded, im fucking tired

Focus50 -> RE: Masters, do you like it... (11/23/2010 1:54:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: masterlink65 focus,,, slave is NOT a gender specific term. Of course it is! It's very relevant to the individual posting their opinion. Male slaves have exactly ZERO relevance to my D/s life and relationships etc, and I'd imagine it's much the same for any other hetero Master. So exactly why do I/we need to learn and accept that which has no relevance in our lives? Focus.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875