Unmanly? Needed for dominance?

Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

CreativeDominant -> Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 5:53:11 PM)
I found this interesting. In conversation today with an owned submissive, she made the statement that she found the use of toys by male dominants as "half ridiculous and half pathetic" and deemed it "unmanly". It seems that it strikes her...and her dominant...as impersonal (the use of toys) and find it odd that a man twice as big as his submissive would "need" to use props to control her and cause her pain. As a dominant who is both sensual and sadistic...as discussed on the other thread...and who has never thought of "needing" my toys to control a submissive or keep/win/earn her submission, I found the concept to be, as I said, interesting. Fellow male dominants who are also sadists: Comments? DO you need your toys to control your submissive and inflict pain? Would you be unable to do so without them? Or do you, like me, separate the "play" with those toys as separate from D/s...an enhancement sometimes, perhaps...but well apart? Femsubmissives, masochistic or not: Do you feel that your dominant is unmanly if he uses toys? Do you feel that your dominant can only control you through his toys? Do you feel he "needs" them in order to control you? Would you like him to not use his toys? Sitting back, hoping to get some good responses...

Asraii -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 5:56:38 PM)
Speaking only from my own perspective; I have never felt a huge thrill over having toys used on me. It's more of a turn off actually; so any man who chooses to not use them, get's a leg up on the ladder in my eyes.

NakedGirlScout -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 5:57:10 PM)
Toys are just toys... these people are way over-analyzing their simple preference for au naturel. WAY overanalyzing.

daddysliloneds -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 5:58:29 PM)
quote: Femsubmissives, masochistic or not: Do you feel that your dominant is unmanly if he uses toys? Do you feel that your dominant can only control you through his toys? Do you feel he "needs" them in order to control you? Would you like him to not use his toys? Sitting back, hoping to get some good responses... no no no no

AquaticSub -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 5:59:55 PM)
shrugs I'm a sensation whore. There are tons of sensations you can get from a hand but you can get even more by using your hand, a flogger, steel flogger, vibe, pinswheel and so on. Sure you don't need toys just to control and cause pain. It all depends on the kind of pain you want to inflict and how much variety you want in your life.

sweetnurseBBW -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 6:00:41 PM)
Master doesn't need toys to control me. I don't find the use of toys unmanly. The use of toys just adds to the pleasure and excitement. Its a personal preference.

SassySue -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 6:00:53 PM)
I think it begs the question of whether D/s can exist without sex or pain. I believe it does. You can use sex as a tool, or pain as a tool to enhance D/s. Do I need "toys" to be dominant? No. Do I enjoy them? You betchya!

Asraii -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 6:02:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SassySue I think it begs the question of whether D/s can exist without sex or pain. I believe it does. You can use sex as a tool, or pain as a tool to enhance D/s. Do I need "toys" to be dominant? No. Do I enjoy them? You betchya! I am curious as to how you came up with such an analysis from what the OP wrote.

sublizzie -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 6:13:00 PM)
Could you define what you mean by "toys"? Are you talking collars and cuffs used for binding? Or whips, floggers, canes, paddles, etc? Or feathers, ice, fire, knives? Or vibes and other insertables? D/s IMO is in the mind. Anything else is just something used as a shortcut on the highway into the mind.

jauntyone -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 6:14:27 PM)
Greetings Master does not need 'toys' to keep me in my place [:)]. On the rare occassion that he does use them; I do not think that it makes him any less at all. He's quite proficient with and without the toys [:D] I wish you well melissa

mstrjx -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 6:19:39 PM)
CD, you are quite right. 'Toys' (although that's not what I first thought you were referring to) are more for S/m 'play' and isn't required for D/s or M/s per se. But depending on the 'subject', they can be quite effective. While it's still 'play', using 'whatever I want' still adds to the element of dominance. Maybe it's having the fortune of having oodles of toys, but I can give quite a bit of variety to scenes'. Even so, one can get somewhat of the same effect just giving a spanking. No toys that aren't attached there. But what about the 'toys' that I originally thought you were speaking of. Insertibles have a 24/7 potentiality anyway, and most 'real men' aren't equipped for that. Having one's way over a very extended period of time can be 'quite' dominant. I guess I don't think what your friend had to say was fair. But what do I know? Jeff

spanklette -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 6:21:17 PM)
The "toys" are the fun part...and only in the hand of one that I deem worthy to use them on me. Could my Daddy control me without the toys? Well, we do that on a day to day basis. We don't have time to play or scene everyday, but that doesn't mean that the dynamic doesn't exist. Sooooo...the toys are just tools of the trade, not the trade itself.

Suleiman -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 6:29:30 PM)
::laughing too hard to write anything:: okay, let me try again... Sure. Unmanly equals undominant. Using toys is unmanly. Bisexuality is unmanly. Switching is unmanly. DOING THE DISHES IS UNMANLY. Never mind needlepoint. I may be undominant, but the crop stings just as bad when I hit you with it.

imthatacheyouhav -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 6:33:09 PM)
well i like toys...Master has a crop...He likes to use rope....loves it actually and various other items...does He NEED them?...no...is He less manly for using them?...again no....does He need them to control me?...no..... would i like Him to not use them on me?...He enjoys it....so thats my answer......

catize -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 7:14:35 PM)
Call me suspicious; my thought is that it’s simply a rationalization for someone who is too cheap to spend money on toys!

MsParados -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 7:32:59 PM)
I think it is all about which approach works or "does it" for you..... We have some toys and props but mostly they are used for the at home porno nights. Daddy prefers a more "hands on" approach, while I in the beginning liked the acoutraments... now nothing says lovin like a good shot to the ribs. It doesn't make someone less dom or un manly if they do prefer toys or tack, and I would think that anyone that did say that might be prone to the one true wayism.

TemptingNviceSub -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 7:47:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spanklette The "toys" are the fun part...and only in the hand of one that I deem worthy to use them on me. Could my Daddy control me without the toys? Well, we do that on a day to day basis. We don't have time to play or scene everyday, but that doesn't mean that the dynamic doesn't exist. Sooooo...the toys are just tools of the trade, not the trade itself. I agree with Spanklette..toys are exactly that..tools..an analogy would be..are you less a farmer if you use a tool rather than your hands?or are you less a doctor if you use x-ray equipement rather than just your eyes, ears or hands?...Tempting

MaamJay -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 7:51:55 PM)
i'm with the majority of femsubs here who feel that the toys are just one extra variety of spice in the whole D/s journey. Due to having recently moved 5000km across country, and the "leatherworking equipment" (cough cough!) being still in the box Master so thoughtfully labelled and the cross and subby seat hidden in the shed behind cloths behind rapidly-emptying cardboard boxes, i am totally sure Master doesn't need His toys to be Domly or to keep me in my place! However, do i enjoy it when He does? you bet! Am i missing them a bit? Well, after 4 months without them (from packing through moving to unpacking), yes i am because i enjoy a good flogging. Much as i adore His handspanking ability, i like variety! i really do wonder about the femsub who said that ... very naive comes to mind? violet[A] aka Maam Jay (who loves using toys and doesn't think that makes Her unwomanly LOL!)

BlackWomanSubNJ -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 7:53:01 PM)
I disagree. Certain toys are great for Doms to use. I think you just don't like toys and it has nothing to do with how it making the Dom unmanly.

Noah -> RE: Unmanly? Needed for dominance? (4/27/2007 7:57:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant I found this interesting. In conversation today with an owned submissive, she made the statement that she found the use of toys by male dominants as "half ridiculous and half pathetic" and deemed it "unmanly". It seems that it strikes her...and her dominant...as impersonal (the use of toys) and find it odd that a man twice as big as his submissive would "need" to use props to control her and cause her pain. This is a familiar--not to mention half ridiculous and half pathetic-- conversational gambit your interlocutor is using. Right? 1. Cite any kink, technique, preference, or implement you don't happen to care for (let's call it "X"). 2. Make some silly pronouncement stating or implying that you are superior to anyone who "needs" X in order to be dom or sub or what-have-you. 3. Ignore all the while that there is seldom any reason to think that anything is being adopted, employed, or preferred out of a sense of need. Some examples of comparable conversational gambits are: "In BDSM it is always the submissive who wields the power." "What does a sadist do to a masochist? Nothing." ... and any sentence including cognates of "true dominant/submissive/master/slave", etc. I'm grateful for these standard (muddle-headed) BDSM conversational gambits. They reliably identify the speaker as either a rank noob or an ignoramus. Noobs are great people to share ideas and experiences with. I'm generally quite pleased to meet them. Except, of course, those who turn out to be ignoramuses after all. If your friend had offerred that the employment of this or that kind of implement struck her as ridiculous or pathetic, she would simply have been telling you something about her own preferences, which is always fine. As I read your brief account of the conversation, it was when she puffed herself up by deriding people she doesn't even know, based on impossible-to-warrant presumptions about their motivations... this was the point at which she marked herself (since she's apparently not a noob) as a terminally uninteresting person, to me.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875