Top-opolis

[rosco rathbone]

I usually have to pee after I cum...could be more fun than spit?

Yeah, that sounds pretty good.

I've recently thought of human toilets. I think it would be hot if you could piss directly down someone's throat as they were deep-throating you.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Rosco, you are just about the only reason I still read Lit.


I am glad you found a home. I have some oceanfront property in Arizona.

Don't hate what you can never be, "W".D.

It doesn't look too good on an older man.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Yeah, that sounds pretty good.

I've recently thought of human toilets. I think it would be hot if you could piss directly down someone's throat as they were deep-throating you.

I'll get back to you on that...

 

[zipman]

It's of appeal to those who believe that SM activities may be harsh and expressive of anger, hatred, etc. Or, putting the other way, what 'we' (dare I say it) reject is Gentle Mom-ish or Gentle-Daddy-ish fetishistic nurturing of dependency, as representing SM.
(Though every one should have his or her own niche, including fetish, and not be held 'lesser' because it's A instead of B.)

I think the first point is key (in bold), and it is different from requiring some historical 'hatred' baggage. I'm willing to stipulate that as applying only to the 'hard core' male 'toppers', the self-said elite commando units of SM. [/B]

I think Top-op-olis is more of an online diary for Roscoe to explore his sexual anger as therapy than anything else. Many, yourself included seem to make this an either or discussion, when for some, there are elements of "sexual rage" that are appealing.

I love roughly fucking the shit out of my sub and consider it more of an animalistic fuck than an anger fuck. Of course I also love it that my sub totally gets off on it. Does that fit into "intent" of the thread? Does the fact that she gets off on it and I like that mean I shouldn't post here?

 

[Pure]

Hi Zip,


//I think Top-op-olis is more of an online diary for Roscoe to explore his sexual anger as therapy than anything else. Many, yourself included seem to make this an either or discussion, when for some, there are elements of "sexual rage" that are appealing.//

I did phrase it as a dichotomy, those admitting to rage etc. and the gentle nurturants, but no doubt there's a continuum. At the same time those of the latter ilk, tend to deny ANY of the 'nasty' or 'negatives' (except as failings or problems), which does create a dichotomy (some vs none admitted to).

//
I love roughly fucking the shit out of my sub and consider it more of an animalistic fuck than an anger fuck. Of course I also love it that my sub totally gets off on it. Does that fit into "intent" of the thread? Does the fact that she gets off on it and I like that mean I shouldn't post here?//

Hey at one time I was the rabbi here, but I can't speak to the 'threads intent'. I know RR's feelings and some others, and RR's favorite topics. My view, as I said, is that I 'fit' in virtue of an extended definition, conceding my possible lack of hard-core bludgeon 'em and fuck 'em credentials.

If you want my opinion, 'animalistic' is fine as in the general territory being talked of. Lack of saccharinity, Lack of excessive self-proclaimed nurturance, and cloying altruism, being the 'bottom line'.

As to the other's enjoyment, there are a variety of views. Mine is not necessarily Sade's, which I've reported, not endorsed -- his being the 'subtractive'** view. Netzach and others here have no problem with a bottom's pleasures, controlled and at a time of the top's choosing, and never as 'THE [standing and continuously-in-effect]*** primary goal' of the exchange, which is how some NurDom's (nurturant [alleged] dom's) express themselves. In a ball park way, I agree with that.

So I welcome you, insofar as I can, to the non-hard core of the Top, where I myself humbly reside. Ha!

J.

** To the extent the bottom has or is allowed pleasure it subtracts from the top's. Iow, it's not simply irrelevant to the top, who let's it happen or not, as it may, but is inimical to the top's more copious ejaculations.

***Added 6/14 to clarify

 

[rosco rathbone]

I think Top-op-olis is more of an online diary for Roscoe to explore his sexual anger as therapy than anything else. Many, yourself included seem to make this an either or discussion, when for some, there are elements of "sexual rage" that are appealing.

I love roughly fucking the shit out of my sub and consider it more of an animalistic fuck than an anger fuck. Of course I also love it that my sub totally gets off on it. Does that fit into "intent" of the thread? Does the fact that she gets off on it and I like that mean I shouldn't post here?

Your trip seems to be rough sexing with a loving touch, Zippo. Nothing wrong with that and I encourage your participation in this thead.

Riddle me this: does she ever hate it? If so do you back off? Have you ever taken your pleasure in flagrant disregard for her feelings? This isn't a manhood test; just keerious.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Originally posted by Pure I'm willing to stipulate that as applying only to the 'hard core' male 'toppers', the self-said elite commando units of SM.

Explicate this remark, rabbi-if you please.

 

[Netzach]

I have a theory -- about male insatiability, or insatiability in general. I think I understand it, why else would RR's general ennui reach so deeply into my sympathetic depths?

the thing is, it's a two sided coin.

Dahlinks,

Checked out a ProDomme site or two lately?

Not that this would hold any appeal to you.

But these ladies totally understand bottomless bottomness. "You will obey you pointless repulsive money slaving wuss." So goes the lingo that lines the pocket. The person who starves is past needing coddling reassurances, coaching. They know exactly who they are what they want and why they are there. No wonder professionalism fosters this focus so well. How many men know their wants so decisively outside a professional arena? It cordons off a safe little niche.

Bottom hunger isn't a lot different from Top hunger, it's just pointed at one's own head. It's a desire toward an absence, an annhilation, a hole.

The compatible Ginger to your Fred has to get it and want it, has to be starved for it in a perfect symbiotic lockstep. Always will be, and THAT is what will satiate. Everything else will keep you from starving, but may not satisfy the same. Don't expect it every day, it's not that common, don't I know.

These harmonics, interestingly, in my experience, are founded more on mutual respect than anything else. Not desire, nor sexual pull, but I have to be in awe of a pig's pigness, in awe of the depths of its kink.

Now, as I have asserted, as I have reiterated in the past....here I agree with Zip. It's too much for a steady diet. It's like living in wartime, I imagine, a constant heightening that I just could not take. I'll take a core curriculum of calm leadership with a minor in menace. But I gotta love the minor.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Your trip seems to be rough sexing with a loving touch, Zippo. Nothing wrong with that and I encourage your participation in this thead.

Riddle me this: does she ever hate it? If so do you back off? Have you ever taken your pleasure in flagrant disregard for her feelings? This isn't a manhood test; just keerious.

Hmmm...I still think the most fun is to take a hate, and make it into a love. Say, fpor instance, you take a woman's hard limit, and eventually makje her beg for it? That is worth so much more than simply forcing her to endure something she hates.

 

[Netzach]

Is enduring that thing s/he hates a part of the process of creating love from "this sucks ass!", though?

I know, in my experience, some force, whining, and crying are a part of that process. It doesn't go from "I don't wanna" to "please please please" overnight. In my case, I have to break through, but if I don't do it gently, it's not going to happen. But I have to break through. Usually there's a period of real conflict, a night of sleep, and a serious lesson learned and contrition, and change, actual measureable change that we both *want* But at some point, someone's doing something they didn't look for, weren't bargaining for and aren't happy about.

This is an act of faith. *fighting off the sweetness and light police with my big stick*

(The fiance/boy is for transformation, the second bottom/ slut is for toying and transporting through VA, mindgames, humiliation and servitude.)

And I'm almost ashamed to admit I'm not talking so much about the super hot humiliating sexy stuff, I mean the little things, I mean any little bit of actual surrender. I mean the slow, subtle surgical transformation of someone who says they are "not 24/7" into an obedient, willing slave.

I know potential when I see it. It's going to be years in the making, but it's gonna be so much better than the second 3 Star Wars pictures, I just know it!

 

[rosco rathbone]

My deepest sorrow is in not being able to spooge. (sigh)

If you could spunk, you'd have to post in this thread under the handle of "Nutzach".

 

[Netzach]

LOL, for real.

S'pose I would.

And thank you for the chuckle.


I'm waiting to hear what Pure meant, it lost me big time.

Can I really not fuck men up the rear because I have a host of issues with 'em....
hate the self righteous pricks! (mutter mutter)

...because I can't spooge?

I know better than to whine about equal opportunity in this town, but still.

I love the phrase "Lack of saccharinity" though. I want it on a T shirt, stretched wider by my tits.

Hey, Pure...

I never said it's NEVER primarily about the bottom's pleasure, though. It can be.

If I allow it.

Have to take 'em out for ice cream sometimes, no?

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I never said it's NEVER primarily about the bottom's pleasure, though. It can be.

If I allow it.

Have to take 'em out for ice cream sometimes, no?

I'm with you on this...sometimes I enjoy my sub having pleasure. She can have what she wants, if it pleases me, and she knows it is for me, not for her.


BTW, nice tits!

 

[Netzach]

Thanks. I...um...get 'em polished regularly.

"For you, not for her", though...

I'm a big fan of positive reinforcement, even with my mean streak, and when I allow pleasure, I really do allow pleasure, even if it takes some form I consider downright goofy.
(fucking around with car parts, for example)

This cannot be said to be "for me" in any way shape or form, I consider it annoying in large doses, and yet I permit and even encourage this because I know it keeps my camper happy.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Thanks. I...um...get 'em polished regularly.

"For you, not for her", though...

I'm a big fan of positive reinforcement, even with my mean streak, and when I allow pleasure, I really do allow pleasure, even if it takes some form I consider downright goofy.
(fucking around with car parts, for example)

This cannot be said to be "for me" in any way shape or form, I consider it annoying in large doses, and yet I permit and even encourage this because I know it keeps my camper happy.

I prefer to try to wrap her pleasure in mine. For instance, I will call her from work, and allow her to masturbate for me, but only while I have her beg for me to shatter some limit of hers.

 

[Netzach]

Nice, nice.

I also like how that transitions a body from "no way, you pervert" to begging for the perversion *without* forcing the act.

Enough masturbation, enough positive association and the limit will eventually turn attractive, if your basic pavlovian behavioral stuff holds some weight.

A decidedly useful ingredient, I use as part of the one-two punch, the other being shut up and do it.



So...

do we get a report on pissing and deep throating? Inquiring minds.

I've pissed on a buddy, not into one as of yet. It intrigues.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

.



So...

do we get a report on pissing and deep throating? Inquiring minds.

I've pissed on a buddy, not into one as of yet. It intrigues.

Can I get a few days to actually set the mood? Jeez!!

 

[Netzach]

Ok...but I'm counting....

 

[Pure]

I thought the thing (below)was crystal clear, but I guess it was author's blindness.**

A definition of a somewhat wide theme at Top is of SM activities as manifestations, sometimes, and rightly so, of anger, hate, etc.
(E.g.,, there is anger manifest at the time of the scene/episode.)
So to say, it includes the suburbs of Topopolis.


Topopolis was founded in part as antidote to nurturance become a fetish: cloying, pretentious saccharinity. (I do this so that your soul may grow, little one. Your tears are the diamonds in your crown. Under my whip you become my Goddess.)

I believe most regulars fit that wide-theme characterization.

Some, however, esp. RR., emphasize further: dominance as esp. male, and dominance arising out of a history of hatred of women.
(There is longstanding hatred before any scene.)

I called the latter, the 'hard core', and, tongue in cheek, the commando unit of (male) toppers.

Geographically, call it the decaying, rotten, degenerate, inner city core of Topopolis. (All those terms being complimentary.)


I'm willing to stipulate that I'm not 'hard core', --a mere suburbanite--and hope some others interested in the wider theme will stick around.

The SM Rebbe

**Maybe my chain is being jerked, in which case, the above explanation is entirely unnecessary.

-------


It's [Topopolis is]of appeal to those who believe that SM activities may be harsh and expressive of anger, hatred, etc. Or, putting the other way, what 'we' (dare I say it) reject is Gentle Mom-ish or Gentle-Daddy-ish fetishistic nurturing of dependency, as representing SM.
(Though every one should have his or her own niche, including fetish, and not be held 'lesser' because it's A instead of B.)

I think the first point is key (in bold), and it is different from requiring some historical 'hatred' baggage. I'm willing to stipulate that as applying only to the 'hard core' male 'toppers', the self-said elite commando units of SM.

 

[Netzach]

Ok, makes sense.

And I really wasn't trying to jerk your chain, not in this case, honest. I just wasn't quite clear of the encapsulation. Which I am now. Were I to jerk chain I like to think I'd be more forceful and elegant, but it's not an intellectual excercise I'm a fan of (see my stance on just about every thread except this one lately.)

The suburbs of Topopolis. Cool. Do you get an SUV and a Borders if you move?

I feel like an alien defector in a psycho-New-York. On arrival, confusion, disgust, then delight as I learned how to read people and came to like the honesty as opposed to the niceness back home. Fuck nice. And I may have forgotten that lesson when I began to learn to flog, scary.

And it's my bad: since when has the T-count around here kept me from feeling something of a kinship? My own damn fault for leaving J. Butler at home.

...If I could spooge I'd spooge on a certain person at work. Unctuous racist little fuck. Has the dumbest, most clownlike of smiles, the least genuine I've ever seen. It'd go right in there, the look of horror would be priceless.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I wonder how much anger is tied up in my Dominance. If I am honest, I have to admit that alot of my sadism is a direct result of pain from my past, expressed in a slap or smack.

 

[Netzach]

There's a big gulf between how I fantasize and how and what I'd do or wind up doing commonly.

Fantasizing about some more of the vengeful outcroppings of my desire, really does the trick as masturbation fodder, mental and otherwise. Like I might fantasize about fucking Uma Thurman. It's good enough as a daydream, I don't actually have to start tracking her down and phoning obsessively for a date.

I will say that negatives from the past are motors for the present. A decided lack of authority, control, and even autonomy, a lack of personal boundaries, all these things have made me relish drawing the lines and drawing them clearly.

edited to add:

If I am honest, I have to admit that a lot of my sadism and dominance is a search for proof positive to myself that I can survive just fine without being completely cripplingly dependent on my family or anyone else.

 

[rosco rathbone]

There's a big gulf between how I fantasize and how and what I'd do or wind up doing commonly.

Fantasizing about some more of the vengeful outcroppings of my desire, really does the trick as masturbation fodder, mental and otherwise. Like I might fantasize about fucking Uma Thurman. It's good enough as a daydream, I don't actually have to start tracking her down and phoning obsessively for a date.

I will say that negatives from the past are motors for the present. A decided lack of authority, control, and even autonomy, a lack of personal boundaries, all these things have made me relish drawing the lines and drawing them clearly.

edited to add:

If I am honest, I have to admit that a lot of my sadism and dominance is a search for proof positive to myself that I can survive just fine without being completely cripplingly dependent on my family or anyone else.

I had a sort of pre-thread to this thread called "The Vulnerablility of Dominants", back in the days when the "writer" dom still stalked the earth. This was the kind of thing I was hoping to hear there.

 

[WriterDom]

I had a sort of pre-thread to this thread called "The Vulnerablility of Dominants", back in the days when the "writer" dom still stalked the earth. This was the kind of thing I was hoping to hear there.

I am glad to see that you still worship me. But currently I'm not accepting male subs.

 

[Lancecastor]

I'm with Mayberry on this one, as some of the most fun is turning a shy innocent inhibition into her rabid lust for which only you control the circuits.