Penetration

[CutieMouse]

Interesting responses... apologies for not grabbing everyone's posts; I'm going to focus on just a few for now.

Or to rephrase it:
There is no less penetration in a vanilla relationship. The amount of penetration is a matter of the personalities involved.

I don't believe a power based relationship is any more (or less) than a "vanilla" one - I'm discussing in BDSM terms, because it's a BDSM forum. IMO everyone experiences "penetration", when one considers the term to encompass vulnerability.

Regarding the PYL penetration - it does not compute for me. Of course, over time, my pyl will discover more and more of my traits, strengths and weaknesses. But penetration is always "passing an obstacle", even in all your definitions, just the kind of obstacle changes. It's not "knowledge by observation" or "consensual discovery". If a pyl "penetrates" the PYL, then it would mean that she was able to pass a mental/emotional/whatever obstacle and gain something, she wasn't supposed to. This is not acceptable for me.

Not to be overly snarky or anything, but my first thought upon reading the bolded bit was to think you've never struck me as the sort who keeps his kink separate from his marriage... presuming you love your wife (which I do presume you do) - she's penetrated you. It might not have been via some sort of typically physical insertion, but Domly as you are, submissive as she may be, it's challenging for me to believe there wouldn't be some degree of ying/yang penetration.

I find my experiences on the top to be *much* more edgy, vulnerability inducing, heart in mouth, I-can't-believe-I-just-did-that than the ones I have had on the bottom, when it comes to intimate romantic relationships. This was kind of a revelation to me, in that it was like "ok, here's where the lifeblood is for me, clearly."

Nothing gets me as naked and fearful and excited as T or M trussed up and ready to let me do things to them. I'm OK with my desires to do that with H because the relationship is predicated on that, but when it's romantic it *still* scares the shit out of me, and that's what makes it completely addictive. I've got him, now what? And it's all my show. Shit.

Thaaaaaaat's the thing that it feels like very few people are ever willing to discuss - the vulnerabilities of simply being the one in charge. To me, that's penetration. It doesn't make the PYL any less bad ass; doesn't make them any less in control. Seeing a man's need to use me is no more or less a penetration, than him seeing my need to be used.

Is a pyl supposed to define the boundaries of a PYL at all?

Despite this
Probing: detecting obstacles (or the lack of them)
Penetrating: getting past the obstacles

In my world these two issues are sufficiently distinct.

I agree, those two words are quite sufficiently distinct; however, I'm not limiting myself to physical penetration.

Penetration is a form of conquest, whether you're talking about sports or sex or war.

And no, I don't care what the OED says. All that touchy feely stuff has got to go!

[sidebar]

The word "conquest" made me squirm. Automatically. Not your intent (I presume); not a reaction I even had time to think about.

Interesting, given the conversation, eh?

*chuckle*

[/sidebar]

 

[JMohegan]

[sidebar]

The word "conquest" made me squirm. Automatically. Not your intent (I presume); not a reaction I even had time to think about.

Interesting, given the conversation, eh?

*chuckle*

[/sidebar]

Ha. Not my intent, but interesting, yes. And the flip side of my visceral response to the concept of penetration, notwithstanding all the definitional variations you put up.

I agree completely with your observation that love makes one vulnerable, regardless of gender or sexual ID. I also agree with Netzach, that topping can make one feel emotionally exposed and vulnerable in its own way. I just think of all that as something very different.

 

[Netzach]

Thaaaaaaat's the thing that it feels like very few people are ever willing to discuss - the vulnerabilities of simply being the one in charge. To me, that's penetration. It doesn't make the PYL any less bad ass; doesn't make them any less in control. Seeing a man's need to use me is no more or less a penetration, than him seeing my need to be used.

Well, you know, if we deal with things like that then we couldn't rely on Bloved like platitudes to get us though the night, and we'd have too much in common with mere vanilla sheep.

 

[JMohegan]

Thaaaaaaat's the thing that it feels like very few people are ever willing to discuss - the vulnerabilities of simply being the one in charge. To me, that's penetration. It doesn't make the PYL any less bad ass; doesn't make them any less in control. Seeing a man's need to use me is no more or less a penetration, than him seeing my need to be used.

I'm happy to discuss vulnerabilities of the people in charge, but to me that is not penetration.

Penetration requires an aggressor, acting with forceful aggressiveness or, at the very least, deliberate assertiveness combined with the purposeful intent to overpower or overcome.

Even if you think about a T or D relaxing his/her line of defenses, allowing him/herself to be penetrated, the concept of penetration still makes no sense without a counterpart willing to take overt and deliberate steps to achieve that goal.

 

[Primalex]

Not to be overly snarky or anything, but my first thought upon reading the bolded bit was to think you've never struck me as the sort who keeps his kink separate from his marriage...

No idea what this has to do with the topic, but these are actually very separate things for me - it's challenging for me to believe that you can run a long-term kink-friendly poly-relationship without this. The fact that wife and sub are the same person doesn't mean that you can mix these roles and situations at will.

presuming you love your wife (which I do presume you do) - she's penetrated you.

Only in your twisted point of view. I see it like JM.

Seeing a man's need to use me

is weird. You should hang out with less HNGs.

 

[DVS]

Seeing the thread title and the person who created it, I quickly came to give it a look. But, upon reading the OP, I found her idea of penetration to be deeper than mine. I feel so inadequate, now. I'd say I also feel cheap, but I don't mind feeling cheap.

 

[Netzach]

I'm happy to discuss vulnerabilities of the people in charge, but to me that is not penetration.

Penetration requires an aggressor, acting with forceful aggressiveness or, at the very least, deliberate assertiveness combined with the purposeful intent to overpower or overcome.

Overcome what?

If I'm grabbing her by the necktie and going "fuck me you hunk of dildo wielding butch hunka hunka" what precisely is being overpowered?

I have put a lot of cocksmen into states approaching nervous wreck doing this. It's fun

 

[JMohegan]

Overcome what?

If I'm grabbing her by the necktie and going "fuck me you hunk of dildo wielding butch hunka hunka" what precisely is being overpowered?

I have put a lot of cocksmen into states approaching nervous wreck doing this. It's fun

My response to a peremptory "Fuck me!" will always be refusal to comply. (Begging, of course, is a different story.) My control issues in intimate situations are borderline pathological, really. But we digress!

The point is that there can be no penetrating without a penetrator. And you just changed the example. Previously, you referenced T or M trussed up and ready to let you do things to them, in response to which CM declared: Thaaaaaat's it! Penetration of the PYL!

I'm saying no, trussed up and receptive does not make one a penetrator - no matter how naked or vulnerable the Top feels in doing whatever she does to the receptive party.

 

[Netzach]

My response to a peremptory "Fuck me!" will always be refusal to comply. (Begging, of course, is a different story.) My control issues in intimate situations are borderline pathological, really. But we digress!

The point is that there can be no penetrating without a penetrator. And you just changed the example. Previously, you referenced T or M trussed up and ready to let you do things to them, in response to which CM declared: Thaaaaaat's it! Penetration of the PYL!

I'm saying no, trussed up and receptive does not make one a penetrator - no matter how naked or vulnerable the Top feels in doing whatever she does to the receptive party.

Sure, agreed.

What they're doing at that time isn't the issue though. I have no issues getting it up for a random trussed up naked guy - even some fairly repulsive ones in my day.

It's what they've done prior that makes the situation completely different, and that has everything to do with intimacy.

 

[JMohegan]

Sure, agreed.

What they're doing at that time isn't the issue though. I have no issues getting it up for a random trussed up naked guy - even some fairly repulsive ones in my day.

It's what they've done prior that makes the situation completely different, and that has everything to do with intimacy.

Beating a non-partner is totally different than beating an intimate mate. I absolutely agree.

What does M do that feels like deliberate, purposeful penetration to you?

 

[Primalex]

It's what they've done prior that makes the situation completely different, and that has everything to do with intimacy.

And the Moebius strip is complete - we are here again.

 

[Netzach]

Beating a non-partner is totally different than beating an intimate mate. I absolutely agree.

What does M do that feels like deliberate, purposeful penetration to you?

Nothing. I'm not talking about deliberate actions at all. No one has to try to get under your skin to do it.

 

[Netzach]

And the Moebius strip is complete - we are here again.

I agree, on closer look, that you're right - the intimacy and the vulnerability it creates has nothing to do with D/s as its source at all.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't demand to be dealt with or acknowledged, or that it doesn't impact same, which is, I think the point of this thread.

 

[JMohegan]

Nothing. I'm not talking about deliberate actions at all. No one has to try to get under your skin to do it.

Agreed. I just don't think of that as penetration which, to me, by definition require deliberate action.

 

[Cattypuss]

I just wanna get all my holes filled with hard cock.

On a more serious note, (a) this thread and (b) the recent posts in the thread about swallowing and c) something a single friend asked me the other day are making me ponder...


.... what is intimacy? How does each individual define it? When I got talking to my friend about it, I started to suspect that intimacy is as difficult to define/pin down as love. It can mean so many different things to so many people.

[/hijack]

 

[FungiUg]

I just wanna get all my holes filled with hard cock.
[/hijack]

For goodness sake woman, will you stop burying chickens in the driveway?

 

[Netzach]

Agreed. I just don't think of that as penetration which, to me, by definition require deliberate action.

I know. You haven't ever had an aggressive young thing grab your hand, say "make a fist" and sit herself down on it like she owns the world.

I was being anything but deliberate. I'd kill to have a shot of the look on my face.

 

[FungiUg]

I know. You haven't ever had an aggressive young thing grab your hand, say "make a fist" and sit herself down on it like she owns the world.

I was being anything but deliberate. I'd kill to have a shot of the look on my face.

Yum!

I've been working on fisting my partner, and I have large hands, and she's new to fisting. So me with my heart in my mouth (and my hand, well, you know where) getting it ever closer to filling her, and... so yep, I did feel vulnerable, worried, freaked out and turned on all at the same time. I'm sure she felt something too ("is it in yet?") of course.

I don't know that I would use the word penetration to describe what I was feeling though.

 

[JMohegan]

I know. You haven't ever had an aggressive young thing grab your hand, say "make a fist" and sit herself down on it like she owns the world.

I was being anything but deliberate. I'd kill to have a shot of the look on my face.

You're right, I haven't. How did you guess?

And you haven't spent time in football training, where they talk about things like "penetrating the line of scrimmage." (Literally, that's the wording.) Even if the entire OL collapses without provocation, there's still gonna have to be some rushing from the other side, or no one's gonna break in. And since the OL never does collapse without provocation.... well, you get the picture.

I'm not saying you're wrong - hell, I'm at odds with the ultimate authority, quoted by CM in post one. I'm just trying to explain my perspective.

 

[midwestyankee]

Does penetration have to be physical? Is it not possible to penetrate your other's psyche?

 

[FungiUg]

Does penetration have to be physical? Is it not possible to penetrate your other's psyche?

Absolutely possible. I talk about getting into the head of my lovers, so I would count as a form of penetration.

 

[Primalex]

Does penetration have to be physical? Is it not possible to penetrate your other's psyche?

Exactly which posting in this thread made you ask this question?

I reread just all postings and from posting #1 (or #5, depending on the count) the non-physical part is already discussed. Or did you just have the urge to write something and have people agree with you?

 

[satindesire]

After perusing this thread, what I find most fascinating is the threat of ANY kind of penetration, whether it be mental, emotional or physical, makes the PYLs run screaming like they're being offered a root canal with no Novocaine.

Is being vulnerable and intimate really that scary, y'all?! REALLY?!

 

[FungiUg]

Is being vulnerable and intimate really that scary, y'all?! REALLY?!

Not so much a matter of whether it's scary as whether it's apt. Scary I can do.

 

[satindesire]

Not so much a matter of whether it's scary as whether it's apt. Scary I can do.

Well, let's see:

If a pyl "penetrates" the PYL, then it would mean that she was able to pass a mental/emotional/whatever obstacle and gain something, she wasn't supposed to. This is not acceptable for me.

I'm not going to address the PYL-is-penetrated-too stuff because that would mean opening myself up further and that is simply unacceptable, dammit.

I agree completely with your observation that love makes one vulnerable, regardless of gender or sexual ID. I also agree with Netzach, that topping can make one feel emotionally exposed and vulnerable in its own way. I just think of all that as something very different.

It seems that the males of the species find the "idea" of any form of vulnerability somewhat scary.