RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm?

RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (Full Version)

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

Message

ExtremeOwnerIL -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 6:26:34 AM)
A couple of quick thoughts - - I think that as long as property showed interest, showed desire through her actions and showed a genuine need to serve me through sexual activity, her ability/inability to orgasm or have a "wet dripping cunt" is part of the equation and not the whole of it. I don't get the sense that props just lies there totally unresponsive like a rag doll. I get the sense that she serves in a way that is a reflection of how/who she is. I think there is a tendency to equate the inability to have an orgasm with a limp rag. Nothing could be further from the truth. As long as there is an energy connection of some sort, as long as there is some participation and a connection that sends positive feelings back and forth due to sex, then to me, it's healthy and good. I get the sense that props sends that energy through her service and through her desire for sexual service - she can't cum. OK. There you go. Now go fuck.Make your Daddy happy. :) To prop's original question - that's actually a good one - I don't "need" my partner to cum. Most of the time, I don't limit or put control on her orgasms because she is quite orgasmic. What I do want her to do is to serve me, please me and be what I want her to be. We have an open energy connection and it's through that mind/body/soul connection that we gain our pleasure. More than not, I use her sexually, and I know through the connection of energy that she loves the use, gives the service and finds fulfilliment in the physical closeness. She does enjoy her orgasms, but when I control them, when I deny her, she finds service through not orgasming. The end isn't the reason for sex, it's the journey. LA and Wildfluers - GREAT comments about energy transfer.

slaveluci -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 6:36:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tricia I hate subbier than thou attitudes i absolutely agree. "i'm a 'slavier slave' than you" or "I'm a 'domlier dom' than you behaviors/statements, in my opinion, spring from those who are the LEAST "slavey" and "dominant." IMO, it shows the massive amounts of insecurity they suffer from. Having to "prove" to anyone you are that super slave or dom simply shows me that you aren't. (NOT you personally, i mean anyone exhibiting that type of behavior [:)]).........slave luci

tricia -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 6:39:50 AM)
Wow. Well said. Beautiful. Where were you 4 pages ago? :) I must go smoke now - i damn near orgasmed!

daddysprop247 -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 9:04:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael I dont imagine that's at all what she's like, or what she intended to convey. For the record, I don't either. I was simply trying to show how things could be interpreted in different ways and that I think that her situation is so vastly different from the majority that it is difficult to attempt to try to relate to some things from her viewpoint...as it is so foreign to many of us. edited to add that I most certainly do not view prop as being inferior or flawed. mistoferin...just as i made some false assumptions when i first entered this lifestyle (like Dominants wouldn't care about submissive arousal and orgasm), i believe that you have made many false assumptions about me and my relationship with my Master. yes, of course i realize that perhaps the basic foundation/values/beliefs upon which our relationship is based may be very different from most, but we are not "freaks" who are unable to relate to other lifestylers on every level. you might be surprised to find out just how "normal" and boring we are. :) with that said, thanks for your interpretation of my original post. the first comment you picked out, "finally! an end to all of that silliness!"...you made the point that this could make the implication that i believe Dominants who desire a submissive's sexual pleasure/arousal/etc. are silly. obviously that's not the case. rather i was referring to the vanilla notion of mutual sexual pleasure, it's all about "us"...that was the "silliness"...not to mention my having to constantly fake it and pretend as if i was someone i was not. that too was "silliness." then the second comment, "are they not aware that submissives will find pleasure and fulfillment in pleasing them, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a wet, throbbing pussy?"...i was in no way trying to imply that there are no submissives who give a thought to their own personal sexual pleasure or that all submissives are fulfilled strictly from pleasing. my point was simply that for those Dominants who wish to know that the submissive is experiencing pleasure or fulfillment, physical sexual responses are not the only indication of that, as the inner fulfillment all submissives get from pleasing do not necessarily translate into sexual arousal. and the last one, "it takes an extraordinarily confident man to not only be comfortable with...but demand...that sexually it is simply all about them." which could imply that you believe that Dominants who want to fulfill the sexual needs of their submissives can not be "extraordinarily confident men". it is not that i believe Dominants who desire such cannot be extraordinarily confident, but rather that imho, a Dominant must be extraordinarily confident in order to be completely comfortable with and even demanding that a sexual experience be solely about their own pleasure. such a man may not ALWAYS want it to be all about them (as i think tricia described pretty well with her Master), but that he CAN make it that way and be completely at ease is what makes him extraordinarily confident. remember when i mentioned false assumptions? well towards the end of the post you said, I must tell you that I have never met one in my experience that was uninterested in my sexual arousal and had I simply laid there and they had gotten no response, no active participation on my part or physical sign of arousal, pleasure or desire from me....well I can't imagine that they would have found that pleasing. A far greater probability would be that they would have likely taken my pulse and been very UNsatisified by the experience. like many others, you equate lack of sexual response and arousal with lack of ANY response, and liken it to laying there like a corpse. why you would jump to such a conclusion i have no idea, but let me assure you that sexually i am not a corpse who must be checked periodically to ensure i am still among the living, giving no feedback or responses of any kind, and not being an active participant.

daddysprop247 -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 9:11:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExtremeOwnerIL A couple of quick thoughts - - I think that as long as property showed interest, showed desire through her actions and showed a genuine need to serve me through sexual activity, her ability/inability to orgasm or have a "wet dripping cunt" is part of the equation and not the whole of it. I don't get the sense that props just lies there totally unresponsive like a rag doll. I get the sense that she serves in a way that is a reflection of how/who she is. I think there is a tendency to equate the inability to have an orgasm with a limp rag. Nothing could be further from the truth. As long as there is an energy connection of some sort, as long as there is some participation and a connection that sends positive feelings back and forth due to sex, then to me, it's healthy and good. I get the sense that props sends that energy through her service and through her desire for sexual service - she can't cum. OK. There you go. Now go fuck.Make your Daddy happy. :) To prop's original question - that's actually a good one - I don't "need" my partner to cum. Most of the time, I don't limit or put control on her orgasms because she is quite orgasmic. What I do want her to do is to serve me, please me and be what I want her to be. We have an open energy connection and it's through that mind/body/soul connection that we gain our pleasure. More than not, I use her sexually, and I know through the connection of energy that she loves the use, gives the service and finds fulfilliment in the physical closeness. She does enjoy her orgasms, but when I control them, when I deny her, she finds service through not orgasming. The end isn't the reason for sex, it's the journey. LA and Wildfluers - GREAT comments about energy transfer. EO, thank you for sharing your thoughts, and thanks especially for making the points in bold. energy transfer is indeed an amazing and fascinating thing, i just think that some have a difficult time understanding or believing that a person can have no physical response of arousal yet still have a positive, craving, "joyous" (to steal one of Wildfleur's terms) energy.

mistoferin -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 9:32:03 AM)
I believe that you have entirely misinterpreted my post. I was merely trying to point out the ways in which I think that others could misconstrue what it is you were saying....not that I expected, or even wanted you to feel as though you had to explain or defend yourself. The only assumption that I have about your relationship (and I base that solely upon the information that you have shared) is that I assume that although it would not be a workable relationship for me....it must be working just fine for you. I was also not saying that YOU lay there like a corpse. I was speaking generally about what I (and possibly others) would perceive as the far end of the spectrum in regards to a total lack of physical responsiveness.

cjenny -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 2:19:48 PM)
When I am with my dom, the last thing on my mind are any orgasms from me. It is about him. I don't expect nor do I really want to orgasm, I want him pleasured... that is my orgasm... HIS pleasure and happiness. This could very well be caused by my medically murdered libido (RIP) but it has had the neato effect of letting me concentrate fully on him. I don't need to cum, don't need the distraction & I just plain don't cum lol. But dang I love love knowing that I bring him to that place. [:)]

lovewithoutfear -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 2:41:47 PM)
"But when daddysprop asks this question, I believe she's saying "Are there folks out there who won't project that demand onto a submissive?" She doesn't orgasm and is OK with that. And therefore, a dominant who makes his pleasure/ego/control based on her orgasming is setting a bar that 1. she can't reach and 2. she doesn't care about. " I resonate with this. I hate being pressured to have an orgasm when my body isn't ready. The older I get, the more it takes to get to that point, so impatient men can annoy me and turn me off -- and if it got to be like that with Sir, it would feel like failure to me (and probably to him too). I am easily aroused, and I love to come, and I do so pretty readily with Sir, but I don't always need or want to come to enjoy sex, especially when it means serving him and his pleasure. And he has times when he is interested in the power rush from making me come, and times when he's just after his own pleasure. Luckily for us, those moods tend to coincide. Smiles JoyfulYes lovewithoutfear

MadRabbit -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 2:48:46 PM)
Well the male ego and our sexual performance are very much linked by socialization. During the "shit talking" that is usually present when you get an group of average Joes together, a shot in the gut over your sexual performance is a hard one. Our idenitities in our manhood lie deep in our ability to impreganate and pleasure women. Personally, I think that its not so much that we care about YOUR orgasm as we are as validating OUR masculinaty. I am guilty of it. Its very hard to get away from the thinking that sex has to be a competition. In fact, just a few weeks ago I had some fun with a girl and my sexual performance was absolutely horrible from being overworked. Even though I still had an orgasm, it wasnt nearly as gratifying as it would been if I had been a good lay simply because of the way I think as an average guy. As far as being a dominant, I think there is a line between caring to provide some degree of sexual fulfillment when you see fit and turning the sex into being all about the submissive's orgasm out of a desire to validate your masculinaty (Note the phrase "all about the submissive"...) Whether I want to give someone one or I want to be self absorbed with my own pleasure doesnt matter because they are both about what I WANT. As far as all the "orgasm control" stuff, not my thing. Too much time and energy for something I dont really find all that fascinating. However, most of my protocols that I have personally adapted are more geared outside of the bedroom as opposed to solely turning someone into my own personal sex slave. I cant speak for other dominants. .

lovewithoutfear -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 2:51:10 PM)
You wrote: "i think imthatacheyouhav is getting treated a little harshly here. She is simply saying that SHE would see it as uncaring and selfish if HER master didn't care about her sexual pleasure. " Actually I think the problem is a difference in people's interpretation of "don't care." There's crass unfeeling don't care, and there's easygoing, no-pressure don't care. It looks to me like imthatacheyouhav is reading it the first way, and many others are reading it the second way.

Stranger1 -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 3:36:21 PM)
I think it's because so many subs demand orgasms-loads and loads of orgasms. I guess a better question might be-where are the SUBS who don't care? Supply WILL meet demand in an unequal market.

Stranger1 -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 3:38:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovewithoutfear You wrote: "i think imthatacheyouhav is getting treated a little harshly here. She is simply saying that SHE would see it as uncaring and selfish if HER master didn't care about her sexual pleasure. " Actually I think the problem is a difference in people's interpretation of "don't care." There's crass unfeeling don't care, and there's easygoing, no-pressure don't care. It looks to me like imthatacheyouhav is reading it the first way, and many others are reading it the second way. I think people need to remember that there is no default for "right" in this. Some subs LIKE that they have a Dom who won't place top priority on them getting off. I guess it's a control thing?

minnetar -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 4:05:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stranger1 quote: ORIGINAL: lovewithoutfear You wrote: "i think imthatacheyouhav is getting treated a little harshly here. She is simply saying that SHE would see it as uncaring and selfish if HER master didn't care about her sexual pleasure. " Actually I think the problem is a difference in people's interpretation of "don't care." There's crass unfeeling don't care, and there's easygoing, no-pressure don't care. It looks to me like imthatacheyouhav is reading it the first way, and many others are reading it the second way. I think people need to remember that there is no default for "right" in this. Some subs LIKE that they have a Dom who won't place top priority on them getting off. I guess it's a control thing? i just think if there is no psycholigical reason for a sub not to want an orgasm then it is all between their dynamic. minnetar

Aswad -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 8:18:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imthatacheyouhav i am glad i have not met the "Doms" that dont care. but then i wouldn't be attracted to a selfish uncaring person. And I'm glad daddysprop247 has found someone who cares enough about her to not care about her orgasms. [:D] Seriously, if a sub or bottom wants to play with me, I'll get them off if they want to be reciprocal in that department, but I'm not about to do so if what they want doesn't include reciprocation. It would be somewhat disrespectful to the sub or bottom if I were to disregard their stated preferences entirely, wouldn't it? Unlike many men I've talked to, I don't have a need for my partner to validate our shared experience through orgasm, and I also know that putting pressure on them in that department will only lead to them having a harder time with it. I do have a fetish for CoC and its complement, quite unrelated to that bit, but that may not be their kink either, and with someone like daddysprop247 it might not even be possible (within reason) to achieve CoC. That is not to say I don't care if they care; my sexual debut included her eventually stopping me after getting off about four or five times in a row. Granted, at the time I was too clueless to realize she had; I just thought she'd been really close four or five times. [8\|] Anyway... I do think that, for many men, making the woman come is a kind of validation. Whether of their "potency", "virility" or just their partner's desire for them, I will not speculate, except to say that I think the reasons vary. The need for validation from external sources is as prevalent in men as in women, though. And I'm loath to say that it appears to me that the "common man" is more concerned with the validation than with returning affection; they're often far more willing to spend hours "holding back" than minutes engaged in foreplay. My sample size isn't empirical, though, so YMMV.

Aswad -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 8:42:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella But I do believe that it is an indication of a physical or emotional disconnect somewhere. Or hormonal, or ... lots of reasons. quote: Though certainly not mandatory for one's livlihood, orgasm is a response naturally built into every person.. Not exactly... There are even people who are naturally asexual. It's pretty common in the autism spectrum, for instance. Natural variations in sex drive run the gamut; yes, the majority will be somewhere in the middle, but there will be "normal" people on the edges of that spectrum as well. If it doesn't cause you distress, it isn't an illness (no, don't get into cancer, please [:D]). I'd be more concerned about the millions (billions, probably) of women out there who feel like they "have to" fake an orgasm for their partner. That's distress, although it may be the relationship, or the communication in it, that's ill. ~lol~ quote: unless something has happened in injurioulsy or developmentally to cut that response off., again, either physically and/or psychologically. Why do people even debate developmental "injuries" anymore? We're almost blank slates when we're born, and that's what we'd still be as adults if we weren't influenced by things during our upbringing and adult development, and that is a terrifying thought, to me... There's only one valid (IMO) criterion upon which to sort these influences as harmful or not, and that is whether they cause distress. quote: Are there Dominants who do not care if you have an orgasm...absolutely...I think though, that on some level, the reasons for not 'caring' about that might be just as worthy of scrutiny as the issue of not being able to orgasm. "Every man wants to be a tyrant when he fornicates", I believe it was Marquis de Sade who said that, although arguably his kink was breaking taboos, more than anything else. That said, it is pretty much a hard-wired biological feature of the male to reproduce with little regard for the consent and/or satisfaction of his partner. Which is not to say that you can't tame these instincts, because we implicitly do that when raising males and teaching them about social norms etc., but I don't think you can ascribe anything much to the human aspects of their personality from being more "naturalistic" in this regard. The orgasmic response in women probably only exists in the first place for the simple reason that there is no evolutionary pressure to eliminate it, and there would be an evolutionary pressure against eliminating it. It's something that's built into men for the reason that it motivates them to procreate, and like virtually every other feature, it is shared between the genders. The clitoris and the nerves in that area develop from the tissue that would become the glans in a male, just as the other external genitalia develop from the tissue that would become the scrotum, and so forth. There's no reason for men and women to develop differently with regards to orgasm, and carrying around extra genes to switch this "feature" on/off depending on gender would confer no advantage. It is a fortunate byproduct of evolution. Further, women's frequently superior capacity for it can be described in terms of an interaction between their neurological and hormonal differences from males, and one could offer lower sensitivity to prolactin due to higher exposure as a plausible theory. "Don't ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - Hanlon's razor. ... or, in this case, evolution. The recent development in the great apes, what we consider "human", is little more than a coat of paint. Well, to be specific, some neocortical developments and a few other changes, but who's counting? That said, most men try to the best of their ability to be better than their natures, and I think this particular item is unsuited for deeper analysis. Certainly nothing upon which to base any doubts about their motives or their capacity for love. Just my 2 cents. Kind regards, Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 8:47:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imthatacheyouhav i absolutely understand it in the context of occasional humiliation and objectification play. i thought we were speaking of the way the relationship its self is...as in over all behavior. and in that context i stand by my before mentioned opinion. I'm not a woman, but based on what their partners indicate they're constantly telling them, they care more about the emotional connection than the sex. There's a big difference between ignoring an aspect of a person's sexuality that said person does not care for themselves, and ignoring a person's emotional needs and physical well-being. She never indicated she wanted a Dom/Master who didn't care about her, her well-being or her mental/emotional needs. Not even, although I think it would be valid, one who didn't care about her sexual needs. Just that she wanted one who didn't care about her orgasms one way or the other. That doesn't imply not caring about her. Quite on the contrary.

TemptingNviceSub -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 8:56:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 quote: ORIGINAL: tricia I think you are equating orgasms with fullfillment, contentment and having your sexual needs met - some of us do not. Some of us get our needs met through our servitude or our partners pleasure/orgasms. exactly!! standing and applauding Have not read the whole thread..however..many sub/slaves do find their needs met through servitude and partners pleasure..and some do not..yes stand and applaud that which you agree with. But also understand that just because others do enjoy the "orgasmic experience" does not mean they are less entrenched in their submission than you..I hope you know I do not mean to be "attacking", but occasionally I get the impression Daddy's prop that you feel that if submissives do not practice submission as you do, then they are , not submissive ,but just simply kinky vanilla's.. We all have our ways...none more or less than any others...Tempting

Aswad -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 9:09:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella I think that 'just not caring' about just about anything about a person you are in a loving, emotionaly intensive, caring and healthy relationship with could indicate possible personality disorder indicators. Could. Just like being impulsive, or sadistic, or dominant could be. But trying to draw personality disorders into the picture is just opening a big can of worms for no gain. Even if that were the case, it doesn't have to be an issue, as long as other things don't cause problems. I'm quite capable of ignoring things, but none of the professionals in the psychiatric field that I converse with on a regular basis, including the ones that treated my depression, with whom I have been very open, have indicated anything along the lines of a personality disorder, as a case in point. Also, consider turning it on its head: even those people can hope to find a loved one they can share a mutually beneficial and emotionally satisfying relationship with. quote: For instance, you might feel a bit more skeptical if you switched the words... <snip> It indicates (or could) to me a couple of things... lack of real value of the person they 'own', and instead just a value in the service disassociatively provided to them by 'property',and/or a personality which has no concern for the feelings and well being of others... which in the extreme, points to antisocial disorder/sociopathic tendencies. There is a huge difference between not caring and not being capable of caring, regardless of how you switch the words around. The former can be for any number of reasons, few of which involve anything along the lines of personality disorders, while the latter certainly is indicative of certain disorders. Although, even a sociopath, provided s/he isn't homicidal, would see value in the other person, although in a self-centric way; just like a child (you know, the sociopaths we call 'innocent' because we are convinced they will grow out of it) will value a cherished toy and take as good care of it as they can. I wouldn't recommend getting involved with one, though, unless you have some seriously good qualifications upon which to evaluate them and base your decision, and preferably a work-up of your own. For some people, on both sides of the table, dissociating the person from their "function" can be a great turn-on. We call this "objectification" in some contexts; usually, I see the word used to apply to using people as inanimate objects, although I'm certain that's just because this happens to be the expression of it that people are most familiar with. There is a difference between this subject/object or subject/verb dissociation in whether it is situational, session-oriented or applies to the whole relationship, but I've seen people examples in all these categories, again on both sides of the table, and I don't think it's a good idea to consider this an invalid desire/need. I think we'd be on pretty thin ice if we were to generalize any of these traits into being signs of antisocial personality disorder, and doing it on a forum where many people have these traits might not be the most constructive way to go about the debate. quote: If the two people are symbiotic and happy... more power to the couple, I suppose, but there is something in my own personal understanding of a beautiful and healthy relationship, of any sort, in which both partners nurture and bring out the best and most healthy aspects of their humanity. I agree, although I think it's more important that people be allowed to choose for themselves how to live their lives. But do you think more or less forcing a submissive to integrate an animal aspect of herself into her life, in contrast to her goals, wants and desires, would be a good way to bring out their humanity? quote: I would think that, as Ravenmuse said, a Dominant would want to look into the issue That's just it. If it's an issue (that is, something that causes distress for the sub), then a Dom should ideally look into it. But it doesn't have to be, in which case "looking into" it would be counterproductive. quote: At this point in my cumulative understanding of being a responsible person who gets involved in D/s power dynamic relationships, I think it is just absolutely imperative to scrupulously examine motivations. This is true of anything. Not just D/s. Not even particularly D/s. You always have to bear in mind that other people have motivations that may or may not be congruent with your own, and that may or may not be conducive to your goals.

Aswad -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 9:16:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael Exactly. What's stupidly selfish is to make a non-orgasmic girl feel pressured or less valued because of that. It's not enough she gives you obedience and serves your pleasure, she also has to feel bad because her involuntary reactions aren't stroking your ego sufficiently? That sounds like a very selfish and more importantly insecure person to me. Personally, my ego is quite strong enough without any need for extra stroking, thanks. Dead on, bravo. [sm=applause.gif] If I'd read what you and tricia said earlier on, I probably wouldn't have bothered to post in this thread. Between the two of you, you have covered the most important points I tried to make. quote: One should also realise, perhaps, that the best chances for "converting" a non-orgasmic girl is NOT to make her feel bad about it, but to accept her as she is so she can relax. Good point. Pressure will make almost any woman freeze up, in my experience. And then they often feel compelled to fake it, and in many cases feel bad about this, leading to a further downward spiral. quote: But doing this just for the purpose of attempting to change her is just a sneakier way to be insecure, and her miserable. Let's not forget deceptive. And, yes, even if you do "succeed", there's a fair bit of a chance that she'll catch on to the fact that you weren't happy about her the way things were, which is likely to do a fair bit of harm. To trust, if nothing else.

Aswad -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (4/27/2007 9:22:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael Orgasm isn't the end all and be all of sex. It's quite enjoyable sometimes to just bonk for awhile and then quit. The act itself is enjoyable, it doesn't always have to have a big bang at the end, and if you think it does, you're just cheating yourself out of a lot of fun IMOP. ~nod~ I was wondering whether I was the only male to feel that way. Most of the time when I have sex, I just enjoy it, and don't bother to climax. It feels great, emotionally and physically. Sometimes I specifically avoid climaxing, as it takes a lot of energy out of you for a while (at least for men; I can't answer for the women in here), which could be spent on other activities that are more rewarding in the long term. If I want to climax, I'll often go for "use" instead, or (more frequently) just do the job myself; with my partner, if she's interested at the time. This with my nephandi; other partners would be according to my understanding of their preferences when talking things over with them and negotiating limits, obviously.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875