advice from female Dommes

[salomes3rdveil]

New female Domme looking for advice and information...have dabbled before but this is for real...from subs and doms welcome

 

[Bramblethorn]

New female Domme looking for advice and information...have dabbled before but this is for real...from subs and doms welcome

Advice on any particular topic, or just whatever?

(Wear sunscreen.)

 

[Netzach]

Do you.

Know what you want.

Don't forget what you wanted no matter how much they whine at you.

 

[Stella_Omega]

don't wear those high heeled boots for more than a few hours at a time.

Don't let other people map their preconceptions onto your desires. It won't make you any less dominant to enjoy penetrative sex. In fact-- if you want to be on your hands and knees getting fucked from behind, you will STILL be dominant.

And by the way, I kinda like your phrase "Female Domme." it makes me wonder if there can be a "Male Domme" and how he would react to being called one.

 

[Netzach]

don't wear those high heeled boots for more than a few hours at a time.

Don't let other people map their preconceptions onto your desires. It won't make you any less dominant to enjoy penetrative sex. In fact-- if you want to be on your hands and knees getting fucked from behind, you will STILL be dominant.

And by the way, I kinda like your phrase "Female Domme." it makes me wonder if there can be a "Male Domme" and how he would react to being called one.

I love the idea of Male Dommes. Kind of like Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence with a ruler?

Oh, uh, those sore feet are a super ice breaker. If they're not killing you fake it. DEMANDING foot attention is the sure fire sign of a doofus, but you will be offered a lot of massage-related assistance, some of it quite talented.

Or wear combat style boots with your corset. Or shove the corset and wear surgical scrubs, a furry mascot outfit, sweatpants, whatever.

 

[Netzach]

Don't let other people map their preconceptions onto your desires. It won't make you any less dominant to enjoy penetrative sex. In fact-- if you want to be on your hands and knees getting fucked from behind, you will STILL be dominant.

This is SO important. SO SO SO. And the offenders will come from some very surprising places over time. People you think are friends who do not share your orientation are often incapable of understanding it, or treat it like a cute joke.

 

[HaddenIndustries]

New female Domme looking for advice and information...have dabbled before but this is for real...from subs and doms welcome

As a sub, this is my humble advice: be ware of others -- especially men -- who put on airs of submissiveness only to get close to a woman's body. These men treat their own degradation, pain, humiliation, etc., as the path of least resistance for access to a woman's body. In my mind, a real submissive sees the satisfaction of his domina's desires as an end itself, and derives pleasure from it accordingly, rather than as a tacit quid pro quo along the lines of "you get to order me around, and I get to body-worship you".

 

[Netzach]

As a sub, this is my humbly advice: be ware of others -- especially men -- who put on airs of submissiveness only to get close to a woman's body. These men treat their own degradation, pain, humiliation, etc., as the path of least resistance for access to a woman's body. In my mind, a real submissive sees the satisfaction of his domina's desires as an end itself, and derives pleasure from it accordingly, rather than as a tacit quid pro quo along the lines of "you get to order me around, and I get to body-worship you".

This is good advice for a lot of people, something I am down with personally, but that's my wiring.

But "yes" is just as valid as "no". Not everyone sees control as a question of access to sexual contact or not. Why the endless conversations and blah blah with prospectives and partners etc. are important.

 

[HaddenIndustries]

This is good advice for a lot of people, something I am down with personally, but that's my wiring.

But "yes" is just as valid as "no". Not everyone sees control as a question of access to sexual contact or not. Why the endless conversations and blah blah with prospectives and partners etc. are important.

Yea. The problem is that half the time the submissive male himself doesn't know which kind of submissive he is -- one interested in sexual access, or one interested in pleasing his mistress simply. Sometimes *I* don't know which I am. I once had a domina who would come over, and basically use my condo as a sort of home away from home -- a way to get away from it all. She'd use my TV and sound-system and fully-stocked kitchen and balcony and jacuzzi. And the whole time, she'd have me locked in my own walk-in closet, with her boots. For literally a couple hours. No contact with her AT ALL. And I loved it. But with other women, there's no way this would be enough.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The real issue is that MOST people who think they are "subs"-- male and female both-- are not submissive much at all. They just think that's what they should call themselves.

Let me introduce you to that little bee in my bonnet.

 

[HaddenIndustries]

The real issue is that MOST people who think they are "subs"-- male and female both-- are not submissive much at all. They just think that's what they should call themselves.

Let me introduce you to that little bee in my bonnet.

Yea, that's about the size of it. Though of course there are different standards of submissiveness.

 

[SubInWaiting]

The real issue is that MOST people who think they are "subs"-- male and female both-- are not submissive much at all. They just think that's what they should call themselves.

Let me introduce you to that little bee in my bonnet.

can you explain please?

 

[Stella_Omega]

can you explain please?

Hopefully, this essay of mine will explain some
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=42017419&postcount=148

 

[SubInWaiting]

Hopefully, this essay of mine will explain some
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=42017419&postcount=148

Thank you

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Stella Om. Every time I read you writing on all these definitions that are applied to the world of BDSM I immediately get two thoughts about what I read you saying:

1. I get the reason you have for trying to clarify these things, and I am well aware that there are other people who also share the same sort of apparent frustration (I'm saying that without any pejorative sense; I think it IS apparent...) about how many people characterize themselves in a certain way, and then are something quite different when you fully encounter them or engage with them;

2. But then I think how remarkably unrealistic you seem to me to be and how lacking in appreciation that nothing that you are going to say along the lines of pure definition, is much likely to change the way people continually behave. Surely? I mean to say, you know what people are like, you MUST know what they are like...

On a very basic or at least fundamental level, people just generally across the board in life are not as rigidly structured as I think these definitions set them up to be.

I mean, it might seem like there are a narrow set of individuals who will fit neatly and ALWAYS into these definitions and maintain really, a complete lifestyle that never departs from them. But being realistic about it, life happens to most everyone and people's plans are set aside by circumstance a lot more than would allow them to ALWAYS be a neat tightly-defined set of rules and behaviours and attitudes.

And then, the bit I know I'm going to have immense difficulty having you even grok, really, is that there is so much more to almost any person than the stylistic definitions you set out to allow for. Their natural voice, their face, the way they stand and walk, their eyes, their shape - oh god, so so much... So many things that are built by nature and not chosen by them consciously. I want to have you accept that there are natural inconstencies they CANNOT decide for or against. I know I won't probably be able to.

The problem I have with just letting what you say go through to the keeper all the time, is that you are giving a COMPLETELY FALSE VIEW OF THE HUMAN WORLD AND THE RANGES OF RELATIONSHIPS IN IT, to people, especially inexperienced ones, who want to know more about really relating to real people in the whole spectrum of what you will find among all of them, and not just some dogmatic fixed view of what constitutes 'official' lore about BDSM.

On the one hand I should stand back from going too far criticising that essay of yours - because it is a good framework of terms. However it is completely two dimensional - which is not actually a criticism, because if one starts out from it as a firm two dimensional base set, then you can do the necessary qualifications that take one back up to the real world. And I think it IS a good set of let's say 'co-ordinates.' But they are very very very VERY skeletal, almost idealistically theoretical two-dimensional, and do not reflect the actualities of real people with flesh on their bones, money in their pockets, or not, good cosmetic surgeons, or not, ethics and personal psychologies, looks and health and brains, or not - at all.

In a cardboard world with cardboard cutout people, yes, you could be right. Othewise, watch out for the rain! It makes the cardboard wet!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Somebody said "thank you!" and left a smiley face.

So it was helpful for her.

It's not a prescription for a life plan, it's just information.

An explanation of something a lot of people don't know.

But you've inspired me to go in and do some rewriting, so thank you!

 

[marieR19]

I actually really like Stella's write-up. It covers, in basics, things that many "bdsmers" take years to understand.

Like my friend who insisted she must be a sub, because sometimes she liked it when her boyfriend was "rough". Her phrasing. Rough sex alone does not equal being submissive.

Or, when I was with my ex, and I made the mistake of mentioning to someone that she was the dominant one in the relationship (although we didn't normally use Dom/Sub terminology). This person was completely confused, because she had seen me initiate kisses and groping on multiple occasions, and if my girlfriend allowed that she can't really be dominant.

There is just SO MANY misconceptions about these words. And especially when things like 50 Shades of Grey goes mainstream, suddenly tons and tons of woman are thinking they should "be submissive". It's just.... frustrating.

 

[HaddenIndustries]

And especially when things like 50 Shades of Grey goes mainstream, suddenly tons and tons of woman are thinking they should "be submissive". It's just.... frustrating.

Amen. Pseudo-BDSM (PDSM?) breaks into mainstream culture and -- surprise, surprise! -- it functions to convince women that their desires make them "submissive". The subculture is coopeted to reinforce rather than undermines the status quo. Whatcanyoudo.

 

[Netzach]

Amen. Pseudo-BDSM (PDSM?) breaks into mainstream culture and -- surprise, surprise! -- it functions to convince women that their desires make them "submissive". The subculture is coopeted to reinforce rather than undermines the status quo. Whatcanyoudo.

This is probably the most precise summary of why I despise those damn books.

 

[HaddenIndustries]

This is probably the most precise summary of why I despise those damn books.

At I first thought that those books, though deeply flawed, could serve as a step toward sexual liberation. You can't spring it all on public at once; it just wouldn't work -- they'd recoil, which would only entrench the status quo. You need to spoon-feed them, by exposing them to the subculture in a context that's comfortable for them. Sort of like an Uncle Tom's Cabin for BDSM: deeply reactionary, but less so than mainstream culture. But then I thought of the 70's "blacksploitation" films... and how someone might have mistakenly thought of those films as being similarly "useful" as a step toward black liberation... and how wrongheaded that attitude would have been. So I thought, ok, maybe Shades of Grey isn't "useful" as a "step toward the ideal" after all.

 

[Netzach]

At I first thought that those books, though deeply flawed, could serve as a step toward sexual liberation. You can't spring it all on public at once; it just wouldn't work -- they'd recoil, which would only entrench the status quo. You need to spoon-feed them, by exposing them to the subculture in a context that's comfortable for them. Sort of like an Uncle Tom's Cabin for BDSM: deeply reactionary, but less so than mainstream culture. But then I thought of the 70's "blacksploitation" films... and how someone might have mistakenly thought of those films as being similarly "useful" as a step toward black liberation... and how wrongheaded that attitude would have been. So I thought, ok, maybe Shades of Grey isn't "useful" as a "step toward the ideal" after all.

Are you counting Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song as exploitation or not? It's one thing when a member of the group in question is doing the work...some of those films in the "exploitation" genre were incredibly important, actually.

I loved Secretary, which is definitely flawed, I'm not about the "show us in a good light only" problem.

It's not just the politics of it, and it's not just the cartoonishness of it, it's some toxic soup of both.

 

[HaddenIndustries]

Are you counting Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song as exploitation or not? It's one thing when a member of the group in question is doing the work....

Ha, good point. I don't have a theory as to what counts as blacksploitation (or exploitation more generally). I guess I was relying on paradigm examples: ones in which black actors and musicians are hired by white studio execs and producers who are motivated solely by profit. The result tends to stuff that capitalizes on the "affectations" associated with resistance. It's possible though, I would imagine, for this process to yield a genuinely subversive product. Stars can align that way. And when 'members of the group' have control over what's produced, as was the case with Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, then it's not an example of exploitation (except in some generic sense of exploitation - exploiting the public's interest, exploiting the market, etc.). In any case, we can agree that Shades of Gray is *not* BDSM's analogue of Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, boy.

Guys, there's actually a far worse message in that book, and it is;

An abuser can get what he wants if he's young and rich. And if he says he loves her a whole lot.

And another one;

A woman's dedicated love can cure an abusive man of his bad habits. because that's all that abuse really is, right? Just a bunch of bad habits?

Annndddd one more;

The only hot porn romances are BDSM romances. These women arent looking for BDSM per se. They're looking for porn.

 

[BiBunny]

Oh, boy.

Guys, there's actually a far worse message in that book, and it is;

An abuser can get what he wants if he's young and rich. And if he says he loves her a whole lot.

And another one;

A woman's dedicated love can cure an abusive man of his bad habits. because that's all that abuse really is, right? Just a bunch of bad habits?

Annndddd one more;

The only hot porn romances are BDSM romances.

These women arent looking for BDSM per se. They're looking for porn.

At I first thought that those books, though deeply flawed, could serve as a step toward sexual liberation. You can't spring it all on public at once; it just wouldn't work -- they'd recoil, which would only entrench the status quo. You need to spoon-feed them, by exposing them to the subculture in a context that's comfortable for them. Sort of like an Uncle Tom's Cabin for BDSM: deeply reactionary, but less so than mainstream culture. But then I thought of the 70's "blacksploitation" films... and how someone might have mistakenly thought of those films as being similarly "useful" as a step toward black liberation... and how wrongheaded that attitude would have been. So I thought, ok, maybe Shades of Grey isn't "useful" as a "step toward the ideal" after all.

I see these two viewpoints as part and parcel of the same thing.

"Oh, he does fucked up shit to you because he loves you, so you should be stupid enough to put up with it" has been done so much that it's a cliché. And that's the only context in which people can accept this new-fangled BDSM stuff--because of the "I'ma save him from himself" trope that everybody's used to.

It's neither revolutionary nor reactionary. It's giving the people what they want. And whether we want to admit it or not, people want the same old status quo reinforced. They just want it done in different wrapping paper from time to time, so it looks like it's something new.

ETA: And it makes money. What more could our overlords want?

 

[Stella_Omega]

As far as "exploitation" goes, try to remember that James is a woman:

who wrote porn for women.

All the success of the book is because she knows what women want to read when they read porn. And I'll give you a hint; it isn't especially the BDSM.