When is NO really NO?

[ownedsubgal]

Because the cunning and guile are fun to plan and execute, and can be very effective in sexually arousing some submissives. If you're not wired for sexual arousal, it may not seem relevant or interesting.

The way I see it, there's a time for plainspeak. And a time for poetry.

i would not say i am not "wired for sexual arousal." i am a physically healthy human being, i can be sexually aroused. i just do not see the potential fun or arousal in trickery or game-playing. when things are not straight-forward, it makes me feel very insecure and confused. i need plainspeak all the time. and, perhaps related, i detest most poetry.

 

[JMohegan]

When a woman tells you that she is not submissive and your experience with her confirms it to be the case, is that not simply a hard limit that a D would want to break down over time?

No. Wiring is wiring. Basic physiology is something else.

 

[midwestyankee]

No. Wiring is wiring. Basic physiology is something else.

Please explain what you mean by your third sentence here.

I ask because earlier both you and Rosco said, in essence, "I do not take no for an answer."

I'm interested in knowing how you can be certain that a woman's hard limit regarding a specific activity, i.e. anal sex, is any different from another woman's hard limit regarding the more general behavior pattern of submitting in the bedroom. You're willing to honor the broader limit but not the more narrow one. How do you evaluate the difference between the two?

 

[ownedsubgal]

I don't accept "no, I'm not in the mood" or "no, that makes me mildly nervous" or "no, I consider that beneath me."

But as a matter of practical fact, I have to accept the fact that there are some aversions, so genuine and strong, that artlessly pushing to overcome them would piss off someone to the point of leaving, or traumatize her to the point of personal detriment.

but you still want to push to overcome those aversions, yes? you just choose to do so "artfully," using "good manipulation." for me personally, such an approach would be more psychologically and emotionally damaging than a clear and forthright (albeit possibly cruel) statement or demonstration that he will have his will.

 

[where]

When a woman tells you that she is not submissive and your experience with her confirms it to be the case, is that not simply a hard limit that a D would want to break down over time?

I think if there is a real emotional connection, then yes, the dom will try to break her down and she will go along with it, but fighting all the way... this is precisely the relationship I have with my dom... and he gets a good deal of grief from others in the scene (especially subs) for being with me.

Please show me what you mean by "good manipulation."

well it was a tongue in cheek comment, but generally no one tells me what to do. I'll do the opposite in fact. I loathe the notion of being subservient, but my dom will have me begging on my hands and knees to let me suck his balls. in fact I can't figure out how I got from totally in control to literally doing whatever he asks me to.

maybe it's because he asks and expects me to do it?

I don't know. I always feel like a bit of a fraud here, because I just can't identify as a sub. I fight it, but I generally do as he says and suffer the consequences if I don't.

So I guess good manipulation is when you ~know~ you are being manipulated and you like it?

 

[midwestyankee]

I think if there is a real emotional connection, then yes, the dom will try to break her down and she will go along with it, but fighting all the way... this is precisely the relationship I have with my dom... and he gets a good deal of grief from others in the scene (especially subs) for being with me.



well it was a tongue in cheek comment, but generally no one tells me what to do. I'll do the opposite in fact. I loathe the notion of being subservient, but my dom will have me begging on my hands and knees to let me suck his balls. in fact I can't figure out how I got from totally in control to literally doing whatever he asks me to.

maybe it's because he asks and expects me to do it?

I don't know. I always feel like a bit of a fraud here, because I just can't identify as a sub. I fight it, but I generally do as he says and suffer the consequences if I don't.

So I guess good manipulation is when you ~know~ you are being manipulated and you like it?

Let's not confuse subservience with submission. I know plenty of submissives who, like you, could never be subservient to another person in their day-to-day lives but who get great satisfaction from submitting to a particular person under particular circumstances.

 

[subish2009]

well it was a tongue in cheek comment, but generally no one tells me what to do. I'll do the opposite in fact. I loathe the notion of being subservient, but my dom will have me begging on my hands and knees to let me suck his balls. in fact I can't figure out how I got from totally in control to literally doing whatever he asks me to.

maybe it's because he asks and expects me to do it?

I don't know. I always feel like a bit of a fraud here, because I just can't identify as a sub. I fight it, but I generally do as he says and suffer the consequences if I don't.

So I guess good manipulation is when you ~know~ you are being manipulated and you like it?

I don't say this to try to convince you to id as a sub, but this is very, very close to the kind of sub I am. That's my favorite part of the power exchange: I almost always fight it because I want to be reduced to begging for that which I just insisted I would never do.

I don't think it makes you a fraud or not a sub. It certainly makes you not a service-oriented sub, but there are many brands of subbing, IMO. Not everyone agrees with that, though.

This is why, in my case, no rarely means no.

 

[where]

Let's not confuse subservience with submission. I know plenty of submissives who, like you, could never be subservient to another person in their day-to-day lives but who get great satisfaction from submitting to a particular person under particular circumstances.

bah! I meant submission... I was distracted.

 

[JMohegan]

Please explain what you mean by your third sentence here.

I ask because earlier both you and Rosco said, in essence, "I do not take no for an answer."

I'm interested in knowing how you can be certain that a woman's hard limit regarding a specific activity, i.e. anal sex, is any different from another woman's hard limit regarding the more general behavior pattern of submitting in the bedroom. You're willing to honor the broader limit but not the more narrow one. How do you evaluate the difference between the two?

As I've already said, multiple times, I don't believe in the traditional BDSM notion of hard limits. It will therefore probably help our discussion if you try to think of these issues without using that phrase.

You just changed your question from one about "submitting to you" to one about "submitting in the bedroom." Which is fine, but I've got two different answers.

With regard to submitting in general, I see this as a basic personality thing. Someone is either relaxed, comfortable, happy, satisfied, grounded, and aroused when their partner is in charge in a personal relationship..... or they are not.

In theory, perhaps, there is a way to alter someone's basic personality, but I am totally uninterested in finding out how. It sounds too risky, too exhausting, and highly unlikely to work.

With regard to submitting in the bedroom only, since I am totally uninterested in bedroom-only in a relationship context, with me she would already be submitting in general.

I have to say, though, that in my experience it is extremely rare to find a woman who is NOT sexually deferential, even in a casual sex context. Not to say that they'll let you do anything and everything after 5 minutes, but rather that I find women in general to be more than happy to let men take the lead in the sack.

I describe learning to take it up the ass as a matter of "basic physiology" because I know how that physically works. And the distinction I make between that and wiring is really a matter of my perception of the effort involved in overcoming any emotional resistance to the act itself.

 

[satindesire]

that's what i've been trying to say, but annoyingly, you have put it better

I snuck into your house last night and stole all your brains.

All your brains are belong to me.

On another note, apparently, 'snuck' isn't a real word. >_<

 

[rosco rathbone]

I snuck into your house last night and stole all your brains.

All your brains are belong to me.

On another note, apparently, 'snuck' isn't a real word. >_<

What's the past tense of to sneak then.

 

[satindesire]

What's the past tense of to sneak then.

I DON'T KNOW! *CRIES!!*

 

[rosco rathbone]

As I've already said, multiple times, I don't believe in the traditional BDSM notion of hard limits. It will therefore probably help our discussion if you try to think of these issues without using that phrase.

Yeah, this "hard limit" business is like nagging or bedbugs. Once you let em in the door, you have a hell of a time undoing the damage. I think it's mainly a creation of the modern internet BDSM business, a training-wheels type thing.

No one is advocating throwing her down on the floor and fucking her ass. As I said, it can take a looong time to change minds.

"Anal is for closers" ahaa I slay me.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I DON'T KNOW! *CRIES!!*

"Sneaked" sounds like the way little kids talk....*scratches head

 

[satindesire]

"Sneaked" sounds like the way little kids talk....*scratches head

I know, right?!

But my firefox spell check INSISTS that "snuck" isn't a word. See, it's giving me the little red dotty line thingie right there.

OH, WHAT, FIREFOX, "THINGIE" gets the same treatment as "SNUCK"?!

Fuck you, firefox spellcheck.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I know, right?!

But my firefox spell check INSISTS that "snuck" isn't a word. See, it's giving me the little red dotty line thingie right there.

OH, WHAT, FIREFOX, "THINGIE" gets the same treatment as "SNUCK"?!

Fuck you, firefox spellcheck.

This reminds me of the trouble I've had trying to get Word to accept "bumbaclaat" as a real word.

 

[satindesire]

This reminds me of the trouble I've had trying to get Word to accept "bumbaclaat" as a real word.

I made a poll. I will have answers, dammit.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=692717

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

As I've already said, multiple times, I don't believe in the traditional BDSM notion of hard limits. It will therefore probably help our discussion if you try to think of these issues without using that phrase.

Yeah, this "hard limit" business is like nagging or bedbugs. Once you let em in the door, you have a hell of a time undoing the damage. I think it's mainly a creation of the modern internet BDSM business, a training-wheels type thing.

So employment of that concept would be your hard limits?

No one is advocating throwing her down on the floor and fucking her ass.

No one is advocating it. No. Completely unacceptable.

But someone is fantasizing about it.

 

[JMohegan]

Yeah, this "hard limit" business is like nagging or bedbugs. Once you let em in the door, you have a hell of a time undoing the damage. I think it's mainly a creation of the modern internet BDSM business, a training-wheels type thing.

No one is advocating throwing her down on the floor and fucking her ass. As I said, it can take a looong time to change minds.

"Anal is for closers" ahaa I slay me.

Closers. lol.

You slay me too!

The concept of hard limits makes sense to me, if you're talking about non-partners hooking up for a session at the local dungeon. "No knives, no fluid exchange, no permanent marks, no masks, okay, ready to go." That kind of thing.

 

[JMohegan]

So employment of that concept would be your hard limits?

Ha. I think of this more as a deal breaker. Someone who's into stylized BDSM is just a really poor match for me.

 

[rosco rathbone]

So employment of that concept would be your hard limits?



No one is advocating it. No. Completely unacceptable.

But someone is fantasizing about it.

No scat no kids no children no poo. These are my limits.

 

[satindesire]

No scat no kids no children no poo. These are my limits.

What about animals? And dead people?

ETA: I thought scat and poo were the same things? :->

 

[where]

What about animals? And dead people?

ETA: I thought scat and poo were the same things? :->

so are kids and children...

rosco is totally up for the dead animals though...

 

[rosco rathbone]

What about animals? And dead people?

ETA: I thought scat and poo were the same things? :->

I include animals under "children" and corpses under "poo".

 

[rosco rathbone]

so are kids and children...

rosco is totally up for the dead animals though...

What's kinda weird is lately I've been having these unbidden thoughts about cannibalism. Not sexual, but actually hungry.