|
dreamlady -> RE: How should I perceive this message? (1/5/2016 9:10:09 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75
So there is this guy who I intellectually connect with, and am considering a casual night of sexual fun with him.
But something bothers me.
First of all, when we spoke detailedly about our sexual preferences, we are world's apart.
So I said to him, what fun are you gonna have with me at all? You're gonna do everything you don't enjoy and get absolutely zero pleasure back from me?
He claims, his really enjoying my intellectual company, so his happy to go along with whatever I want, just to meet me.
And then he said, "Anyway, I've always had no problems getting women to do exactly what I want in bed. Women seem to do anything the guy wants to please him, thinking that will keep her man with her, even though that's usually not true."
I kinda raise an eyebrown on that!
Am I over sensitive? I feel like there is something I should be interpreting from that, but not sure exactly what. I am on the fence about meeting this guy now, after that statement ha!
I think, the thing is, why is he talking down about women who would do anything to please him in bed? Isn't that a good thing? He should appreciate them more!
I'm like a novelty experience now? Spend a night, doing nothing he wants in bed?
Umm, no. Just no, Greta. It isn't even about trying to change the other person to suit yourself, which is bad enough. We've all Been There, Done That to one extent or another and/or had it done to us.
Personally, I would never put myself in a position where I might get intimate with somebody who is sexually incompatible with me. Unknowingly, perhaps, but not knowingly, in any event.
You have not found this to be a recipe for disaster up until now, I shall presume, since you later declared that "I am not worried about sexual chemistry. I give a man a blue print on how to pleasure me. It's easy for any man to pleasure me. So if he says his willing to follow instructions, he will naturally do a good job in bed even though there is no natural chemistry."
Okay, I'm going to go there. This man sees you as a challenge, as a sexual conquest. You don't enjoy oral. That's a challenge for him to put you in a position of forced oral receiving. You will only give your Master oral, so you HAVE done it before willingly and enjoyed doing it to him; therefore, the precedent has already been set in that particular case.
You are an anal virgin. You are also open and blunt when it comes to discussing your sexuality, so he probably already knows that you are a submissive-in-waiting for the next Master Right to come along.
Most vanillas are totally clueless about D/s and see it unfolding as actual, non-consensual slavery with a slave-Owner Master. If you have been "enslaved" before, then you can be "enslaved" again. Simple.
Most vanillas are clueless about the consensuality of BDSM (or about honoring mutual consensuality with respect to a whole shitload of situational issues, which is my biggest beef with vanilla life interactions as commonly engaged in).
What little they've gleaned has to do with extreme Bondage,
Discipline as corporal punishment meted out by Big, Bad Sadistic Psycho-Mofos on poor, itty-bitty, pathetic *creatures* being "forced" into becoming masochistic victims because they are too weak-willed, helpless, and powerless (by being physically restrained and overpowered) to fend for themselves.
Heaps of Humiliation tossed about liberally for good measure filled with acts of Degradation, Debasement, Depersonalizing Objectification, and Dehumanization.
Such is what draws renegade fringe elements like a moth to a flame dancing (playing) around in the devil's playground.
Run, girl, run the opposite direction as fast as your legs can carry you. Don't Walk. Don't Stop to Collect $200 as you pass GO.
Dodge this bullet!
DreamLady
|
|
|
|
