A submissive's arousal...does it matter?

[FurryFury]

I don't have a submissive but when I top him yes his arousal is very important to me. When he tops me, his arousal is very important to me. Hell, when we do the dishes, his arousal is very important to me. LOL.

 

[ninser]

Speaking from a sub point of view I think its VERY important

 

[BiaTcHiNFiRe]

For me, yeah, I want the sub to be enjoying it. Speaking personally, I like controlling her orgasm first and foremost, cultivating it on my terms, preventing it, halting the buildup when she's at the most heightened state I can control, before finally allowing it. That being the case, you could say that giving her pleasure is pretty much an absolute necessity most of the time. That's a daddy-dom talking though. I suspect you'll get different answers from your resident sadists.

I agree with what Bunny said, too, about getting her to enjoy something that's outside her comfort zone, because therein lies the most sexual intensity for both of us....pushing her where she doesn't readily want to go, and yet she gets off on it in spite of herself.

Anyway....yeah, sub's orgasm matters to me.

J

Very nice said!

 

[BiaTcHiNFiRe]

After 15 years of being with someone who never really cared if I come or not I must say my arousal matters to me a lot yes. The arousal and getting of on his command sounds way too good to my ears, so yes I want it and crave it, dream of it. I dunno demand it tho, I get what I am given.

I've always had problem with orgasms. Well untill I find out about my submissive side. I get excited quite easily now, but to get off I need his dominance and his control. So yes I deffo need him to do care about my arousal.

I dont need to get off on every cost, but I do need to feel the rush, the boiling helpless need to come on his command which he can build in me. I need that yes. I like to be treated like that. I like to be tortured to the point where I cry for it. Where the need to come is so strong it feels my belly will explode if I wont come NOW. Thats what I crave yes. If I am actualy allowed to come or not then thats another story. Maybe I like the torturing more than the orgasm itself, I am not sure.

Anyways, get me to this point require my PYL to care of my arousal. So yes I absolutely NEED him to care of my arousal. Whether I come or not later. I need him to care.

 

[BLoved]

I think it is essential to arouse my beloved.

I prefer that she experience several hours of pleasure, bound into a comfortable position so that she cannot interfere with the pleasure she is receiving.

I think a master, if he is to be worthy of the title, should be a master at giving pleasure, and not just the other things that one associates with bdsm.

Giving pleasure to a beloved is one of many ways a master can show his love and respect for all he receives from her.

 

[Etoile]

I think it is essential to arouse my beloved.

I prefer that she experience several hours of pleasure, bound into a comfortable position so that she cannot interfere with the pleasure she is receiving.

I think a master, if he is to be worthy of the title, should be a master at giving pleasure, and not just the other things that one associates with bdsm.

Giving pleasure to a beloved is one of many ways a master can show his love and respect for all he receives from her.

Whether the PYL is skilled at giving pleasure, and whether the pyl's pleasure matters, are two totally different things.

 

[BLoved]

Whether the PYL is skilled at giving pleasure, and whether the pyl's pleasure matters, are two totally different things.

Why should anyone love anyone if they cannot or will not give pleasure (and I am not speaking of those whose medical condition prevents it)?

 

[Etoile]

Why should anyone love anyone if they cannot or will not give pleasure (and I am not speaking of those whose medical condition prevents it)?

Look at that from the opposite side. Why should anyone love someone who cannot receive pleasure? (And by "pleasure" I assume we are talking about sexual arousal/orgasm, the topic of this thread, not cuddles on the couch with a movie.) There are those like osg who simply do not feel aroused by sexual activity, and there are those like me whose libido is dampened by medication. Sexual pleasure isn't a big part of the relationship for either of us, but we each love our respective partners. So why should anyone love us? If we are so incapable of feeling pleasure, why should anyone care about us?

If you think about it, that answers your question.

 

[BLoved]

Look at that from the opposite side. Why should anyone love someone who cannot receive pleasure? (And by "pleasure" I assume we are talking about sexual arousal/orgasm, the topic of this thread, not cuddles on the couch with a movie.) There are those like osg who simply do not feel aroused by sexual activity, and there are those like me whose libido is dampened by medication. Sexual pleasure isn't a big part of the relationship for either of us, but we each love our respective partners. So why should anyone love us? If we are so incapable of feeling pleasure, why should anyone care about us?

If you think about it, that answers your question.

Actually, it doesn't.

You may notice that I made an exception with respect to those whose medical condition prevents either the giving or receiving of pleasure.

Being a master is more than just wielding a whip. Being skilled at giving pleasure should be just as much a part of his repetoire of skills as any other, perhaps moreso than any other.

I would consider the absence of that skill a red flag.

 

[Etoile]

Actually, it doesn't.

You may notice that I made an exception with respect to those whose medical condition prevents either the giving or receiving of pleasure.

Being a master is more than just wielding a whip. Being skilled at giving pleasure should be just as much a part of his repetoire of skills as any other, perhaps moreso than any other.

I would consider the absence of that skill a red flag.

I already answered this.

Whether the PYL is skilled at giving pleasure, and whether the pyl's pleasure matters, are two totally different things.

 

[Etoile]

Actually, it doesn't.

You may notice that I made an exception with respect to those whose medical condition prevents either the giving or receiving of pleasure.

No, you said giving pleasure. You did not mention receiving.

Being a master is more than just wielding a whip. Being skilled at giving pleasure should be just as much a part of his repetoire of skills as any other, perhaps moreso than any other.

I would consider the absence of that skill a red flag.

I already answered this.

Whether the PYL is skilled at giving pleasure, and whether the pyl's pleasure matters, are two totally different things.

 

[BLoved]

No, you said giving pleasure. You did not mention receiving.

The example I was thinking of was Christopher Reeve: complete paralysis.

My apologies for not being clearer, but I believe I was more clear in my last post on this.

I don't believe love should be denied because of a medical condition, regardless of who is suffering from it and regardless of how it manifests itself.

If I did I would have stopped loving my wife when we learned she had cancer.

At any rate, clearly we disagree about the importance of a master's ability to give pleasure in situations where both participants are healthy enough for that to occur.

 

[Etoile]

The example I was thinking of was Christopher Reeve: complete paralysis.

My apologies for not being clearer, but I believe I was more clear in my last post on this.

I don't believe love should be denied because of a medical condition, regardless of who is suffering from it and regardless of how it manifests itself.

If I did I would have stopped loving my wife when we learned she had cancer.

At any rate, clearly we disagree about the importance of a master's ability to give pleasure in situations where both participants are healthy enough for that to occur.

Love != pleasure.
Desire != ability.

 

[BLoved]

Love != pleasure.
Desire != ability.

The exclamation marks are confusing me. Would you like to clarify these statements?

 

[Etoile]

The exclamation marks are confusing me. Would you like to clarify these statements?

!= (pronounced "bang equal" or "bang equals"), used in programming, means the negation of equal. Also seen as =/= or ≠. Being a computer nerd, != is my habit rather than the other two.

Translation:
Love does not equal [sexual] pleasure. (1)
Desire does not equal ability. (2)

The above notes refer to your statements:
(1) I don't believe love should be denied because of a medical condition, regardless of who is suffering from it and regardless of how it manifests itself.
(2) At any rate, clearly we disagree about the importance of a master's ability to give pleasure in situations where both participants are healthy enough for that to occur.

 

[BLoved]

!= (pronounced "bang equal" or "bang equals"), used in programming, means the negation of equal. Also seen as =/= or ≠. Being a computer nerd, != is my habit rather than the other two.

Translation:
Love does not equal [sexual] pleasure. (1)
Desire does not equal ability. (2)

The above notes refer to your statements:
(1) I don't believe love should be denied because of a medical condition, regardless of who is suffering from it and regardless of how it manifests itself.
(2) At any rate, clearly we disagree about the importance of a master's ability to give pleasure in situations where both participants are healthy enough for that to occur.

I'm not saying love equals [sexual] pleasure, nor am I saying desire equals ability.

 

[Etoile]

I'm not saying love equals [sexual] pleasure, nor am I saying desire equals ability.

Yes, you are. In a thread about whether submissives' arousal matters, you are talking about a dominant's ability to to give pleasure. Let's say I am a masseuse. I give GREAT footrubs. Does that mean I have the desire to give them to my wife every night? No, it does not. I have the ability, but not the desire. I'm quite certain osg's Master has the ability to give her sexual pleasure. But he doesn't have the desire to do so.

You were definitely saying ability to give pleasure being important. We are talking about desire to give pleasure.

Not. The. Same. Thing.

You also said that love should not be denied. YOU brought love into it. In a conversation about sexual pleasure, you said that love should not be denied.

Not. The. Same. Thing.

And on that note, I am going to bed, because it is midnight.

 

[BLoved]

You also said that love should not be denied. YOU brought love into it. In a conversation about sexual pleasure, you said that love should not be denied.

Not. The. Same. Thing.

For some of us they are very closely related.

That's why we speak of "making love".

 

[Stella_Omega]

Why should anyone love anyone if they cannot or will not give pleasure (and I am not speaking of those whose medical condition prevents it)?

Well I'm with you on this one-- I prefer to give and recieve orgasms, and a relationship without 'em is most likely some sort of working partnership, not any deep love.

But like everything else in relationships, vanilla or kinky, there are no universal rules.

 

[BiaTcHiNFiRe]

I think it is essential to arouse my beloved.

I prefer that she experience several hours of pleasure, bound into a comfortable position so that she cannot interfere with the pleasure she is receiving.

I think a master, if he is to be worthy of the title, should be a master at giving pleasure, and not just the other things that one associates with bdsm.

Giving pleasure to a beloved is one of many ways a master can show his love and respect for all he receives from her.

I actualy agree with what BLoved said.

 

[Kikori]

I actualy agree with what BLoved said.

Because it's one of the few times he's actually speaking a truth instead of trying to slander whoever is responding to him.

 

[BiaTcHiNFiRe]

Because it's one of the few times he's actually speaking a truth instead of trying to slander whoever is responding to him.

I didnt see all the threads about Bloved nor I have read all his posts, but I see many people talk crap about him and his posts. I think it SUCK, but I must as well say I am not suprised. Lit people always got bored from time to time, find someone new on here and keep bitching about his/her posts.
Saw it too many times before.

And it really doesnt matter who slander who first. It's still annoying, from both sides.

 

[BLoved]

I actualy agree with what BLoved said.

Thank you

 

[MisterSir]

I didnt see all the threads about Bloved nor I have read all his posts, but I see many people talk crap about him and his posts. I think it SUCK, but I must as well say I am not suprised. Lit people always got bored from time to time, find someone new on here and keep bitching about his/her posts.

Sweetie, please. Read more than a smattering of the drivel he posts and then try to say the mote is in our eyes.

 

[BiaTcHiNFiRe]

Sweetie, please. Read more than a smattering of the drivel he posts and then try to say the mote is in our eyes.

I find reading threads where people just slander each other a waste of time.

I didnt say theres a mote if your eyes. I mean, you don't have to like everyone on this forum, do you? He thinks this - you think that, it's all cool. No need to make silly threads about anyone.

1000 people 1000 opinions.