quote:

ORIGINAL: NocturnalStalker

This honestly sounds like a more gentle way of saying bi-sexual.  If you are brought to the point of having an intimate encounter with someone of the same sex period then you must in some way have bi-sexual tendencies.  It comes across as a denial label.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

I disagree.  One is about a person's own interests and the other is about obeying the person who owns you. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Who said it was sudden?

Submitting to someone else doesn't mean that a person is going to like everything they will ever be required to do.  Some would even argue that going against one's own sexual preferences to obey to a specific act is a way for the s-type to know just how much they can set their own will aside and follow the will of the D.  The same can be said of Owner/property dynamics.  It's not a case of them liking it.  Instead, it's a case of the owner wanting a task done and that means that is what they are going to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NocturnalStalker
See what you described strikes me as total disregard for someone else's feelings if they truly do not want to go through with an act and if that sort of dynamic is present in a relationship then there really is no "limit" that the owner in this case can stretch out to and expect the other to obey.  What if you had a submissive that was very straight and simply could not be with their same gender in any sexual tone, whatsoever?  To me what you were eluding to isn't so much as making them demonstrate flexibility as it is completely breaking them. 

If they are willing to demonstrate flexibility in the first place, then obviously they must have some sexual interest in the same gender which to most people would qualify you as bi-sexual. 

quote:

See what you described strikes me as total disregard for someone else's feelings if they truly do not want to go through with an act and if that sort of dynamic is present in a relationship then there really is no "limit" that the owner in this case can stretch out to and expect the other to obey.  What if you had a submissive that was very straight and simply could not be with their same gender in any sexual tone, whatsoever?  To me what you were eluding to isn't so much as making them demonstrate flexibility as it is completely breaking them. 

If they are willing to demonstrate flexibility in the first place, then obviously they must have some sexual interest in the same gender which to most people would qualify you as bi-sexual.

quote:

A point may (or may not, I'll give you that) come that they don't see a sexual act for the pleasure of their owner any differently than mopping a floor. 

quote:

We'll have to agree to disagree. Some people actually *want* to be owned to such a degree. To be at the complete use and will of the owner. A point may (or may not, I'll give you that) come that they don't see a sexual act for the pleasure of their owner any differently than mopping a floor. The act itself is inconsequential. It's the owner's happiness that matters. Feeling complete ownership in such a way is very rewarding.

At this point, I'm probably better off allowing the s-types to speak for themselves on the matter. There are a number here on the boards who have experienced this in their submission/slavery/ownership. None of whom I have ever considered "broken".

quote:

I disagree, it doesn't require "breaking" or any innate hidden bisexuality. I am a person who simply could not be with the opposite gender in any sexual tone whatsoever, yet if Hanners decided that I should have sex with a guy, I'll do it. Obviously I really hope she doesn't, and it would very probably also cause some major issues between us that will have to be worked through, but I would do it. That's my job, I do what I'm told to do. As Hanners likes to say, it really is that simple.

quote:

Gawd. I'd hope that there's more of a buzz to it than that!

Some of us get a real buzz out of mopping the floor you know. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: NocturnalStalker
Maybe there was slight miscommunication here, but from how I was understanding it was having an s-type that is perfectly fine with having sexual activity with the opposite gender then suddenly having their "loyalty tested" through making them do something that is obviously uncomfortable to them.  Even those that get their rocks off from being made into complete property have some level of consent in being "forced" to do something which differs from my initial impression that what you proposed is going way beyond their boundaries.