Top-opolis

[rosco rathbone]

No, I wouldn't dump here as a "false sub." What I would do is discuss it with her and let her know that my expectations are that if she identifies something as within her limits, and I command it, I expect her to do it. If it happened again, I would either dismiss her or punish her, depending on my mood and the other dynamics of our relationship. How important was that particular act to me?

The issue with UCE was she felt that a sub (or self-professed slave as she is) should have the right to repeatedly question her Dom (or top) as much as she wants to. I disagree with this concept completely. My subs have always been free to ask a question or to discuss things with me, when I give them leave to do so. However, there are some basic aspects of submission that a sub should be prepared to do once they have been identified as being within her limits.

Another example is if I tell a sub to crawl to me with a crop in her mouth. If I command it, I don't want to hear her ask why, I just want her to do it. If I have to explain myself to her every time I give a command, then I am not in control and she is not being obedient. To me, this is the core of BDSM, Control and Submission.

So you don't have a hard and fast "my way or the highway" rule. You are, in fact willing to be patient and work around the issue. I'm assuming that your "If I command it, I don't want to hear you ask why"-(*unspoken threat of abandonment*) is more an expression of an attitude than the way you actually do business.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Glad that we can move on now.

I think my above post describes it well but here is more. It is using my cock as a weapon, stabbing it into a woman repeatedly and violently with no pretense about "making love." It is for my pleasure alone, and the force used is often ferocious.

I love it when she is sore the next day from being so savagely fucked.

I feel the same way, with the crucial difference that, with me, there is a powerful element of revenge against both women as the sex that has caused me so much frustration and against the female cultural elements that brand us as villains unless we sail our sexuality under the false flag of "making love".

 

[zipman]

So you don't have a hard and fast "my way or the highway" rule. You are, in fact willing to be patient and work around the issue. I'm assuming that your "If I command it, I don't want to hear you ask why"-(*unspoken threat of abandonment*) is more an expression of an attitude than the way you actually do business.

It all depends on the situation. I enjoy BDSM most within a relationship, therefore, there are certain concessions I am willing ot make if I am in love with someone. My gf now is amazing, and we will be getting engaged soon. If she has limits, we discuss them. If she went back on them, I would be pissed, and I would punish her for going back on them. If she was just a sub to me and I didn't love her, then it would be the highway for her disobedience.

The whole purpose of discussing limits is to understand what is and is not an acceptable command. If it is within the limits, I expect 100% compliance.

It is easy to say and more complicated to do in r/l, but I pretty much stick with it.

 

[zipman]

I feel the same way, with the crucial difference that, with me, there is a powerful element of revenge against both women as the sex that has caused me so much frustration and against the female cultural elements that brand us as villains unless we sail our sexuality under the false flag of "making love".

That is indeed a crucial difference. While I might enjoy that with a sub, I wouldn't with my current gf.

Do you think your mysoginy prevents you from having relationships, or is that something you are not interested in?

 

[rosco rathbone]

That is indeed a crucial difference. While I might enjoy that with a sub, I wouldn't with my current gf.

Do you think your mysoginy prevents you from having relationships, or is that something you are not interested in?

My misogyny definitely complicates things, but what you see here is only a slice of the real pie. I have compensating characteristics which make relationships possible for a while, until the inevitable flameout.

I am not really capable of violent sex or humiliation or any of the things I enjoy out of the context of a relationship; which does not, to me, mean strictly boyfriend-girlfriend. It means that I know and like someone and have an affinity for them as well as a knowledge of the inside of their head.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I came across this picture in the course of my wanderings. This woman pretty much sums up female perfection from the neck up, and the rest doesn't appear bad either. Curiously enough, she looks exactly like my ecks......

 

[Pure]

Zip said,


Do you think your mysoginy prevents you from having relationships, or is that something you are not interested in?

If misogyny prevented men from having relationships, there would be hardly any relationships!

In general, hatred of the opposite sex is not a preventing factor of relationships, since the need, also is great. Indeed, it could be argued that such hatred is an incentive to a relationship: how better, or else, could one exercise (let out, develop, and employ) that hatred?

 

[rosco rathbone]

If there were no great need, there'd be no misogyny. It's that simple.

 

[scarlet vixen]

Well, Zipman 7, you are candid.

Glad that we can move on now.

I think my above post describes it well but here is more. It is using my cock as a weapon, stabbing it into a woman repeatedly and violently with no pretense about "making love." It is for my pleasure alone, and the force used is often ferocious.

I love it when she is sore the next day from being so savagely fucked.

I'd remind you that the 'stabbing' as well as the soreness is likely mostly in your head; a slight case of 'macho' or 'dominating delusional personality disorder', if you you're acquainted with it.

http://www.mediawatch.com/machodisorder.html

You've heard of Annabell Chong? When the male and female feral fucking machines meet--filled with bloodlust and all that--I bet on the latter to survive. It's likely the former whose working implements are sore the next day.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Well, Zipman 7, you are candid.




I'd remind you that the 'stabbing' as well as the soreness is likely mostly in your head; a slight case of 'macho delusional', if you you're acquainted with the disorder. You've heard of Annabell Chong? When the male and female feral fucking machines meet--filled with bloodlust and all that--I bet on the latter to survive. It's likely the former whose working implements are sore the next day.

Anabel Choooooonnnnnnng......

oo yea

 

[scarlet vixen]

I feel the same way, with the crucial difference that, with me, there is a powerful element of revenge against both women as the sex that has caused me so much frustration and against the female cultural elements that brand us as villains unless we sail our sexuality under the false flag of "making love".

Esteemed sir,

Your lament only reaches so far, since it's the men who've been experts at suppressing and mislabling female sexuality. You do know a number of guys like yourself that commonly talk of whores and sluts and don't mean 'working girls.'

The inventors of romance were likely the troubadors; 'courtly love', therefore a male invention.

Women are practical; they adapt to necessities, like the male need to call it 'love and marriage.'

As for your frustrations, how exactly can 'women' (in general) be the cause? Who are you talking about?

At least you're honest, but you don't seem to understand your own feral drive.

With best wishes for peace and love,

SV

 

[AnelizeDarkEyes]

*chuckling on the sidelines*

 

[rosco rathbone]

Esteemed sir,

Your lament only reaches so far, since it's the men who've been experts at suppressing and mislabling female sexuality. You do know a number of guys like yourself that commonly talk of whores and sluts and don't mean 'working girls.'

The inventors of romance were likely the troubadors; 'courtly love', therefore a male invention.

Women are practical; they adapt to necessities, like the male need to call it 'love and marriage.'

As for your frustrations, how exactly can 'women' (in general) be the cause? Who are you talking about?

At least you're honest, but you don't seem to understand your own feral drive.

With best wishes for peace and love,

SV

Unfortunately, I had the misfortune to be born into modern times, and not only that, but to be the scion of a man-hating and very smart hardcore feminist mother. Thus I am burdened with all sorts of issues & complexes and lack the straightforward me man lion you girl lion sexuality of a well-adjusted fellow like the zipster.

I grew up and was educated in a very left-leaning, humanist milleu and, like my peers, absorbed all sorts of post-1960s, post-Joy of Sex folderol about the importance of equality in sex and so on and so forth. Because of my background I was fertile soil for this dark crop of sweetness and light; but I've seen many other young fellows who come from similar backgrounds also beset.

I'm not making a case for a universal conspiracy here. I speek to myself and to other fellows like me, warped by the times. My misogyny is an inevitable pendulum swing, given what I went through as a youth, and I'm assuming that it will serve it's purpose and all will balance out Taoistically.

As to the practicality of women: I say of course. Women are people with their own drives and urges and necessities and that's why we are in an unending state of sexual warfare. Women will "do what they have to do"-as they say in Bensonhurst-and fellows will follow suit. I've never claimed MALE SUPREAMACY (well, only with tongue firmly in cheek). I've only claimed that the sexes are forever and always at odds; no quarter asked nor given.

As to men who denigrate women...I have only been working in construction for about 6 years, but I find myself far, far more comfortable in that environment than I ever did when I was surrounded by highly educated, principle young eunuchs. I like to be in a manly environment where one can call a cunt a cunt without fear of lawsuits.

I just had a discussion about women-as-the-source-of-my-frustrations with the young lady who so graciously suffered my oral intrusions (story told several pages back). I was trying to make it clear to her that what I really wanted from "women", or at least the women in my emotional life (who are all committed feminists) was understanding. Understanding about such issues as "I should be able to dress however I want and walk about free from harrassment".

Ok, you got me writing a book here, SV. THanks for entering the discussion.

rizzzco

 

[rosco rathbone]

Your lament only reaches so far, since it's the men who've been experts at suppressing and mislabling female sexuality.
SV

You know, I must beg to differ here. Since the sixties, women have been equal partners in politically and socially motivated mislabellings and miscastings of sexuality.

 

[Pure]

Here's a little poll I made up; I'm posting here only, for the time being; it won't be automatically compiled: It's about medium to long-term, continuing domination of another and that person's allowed sexual pleasure. {It's not about one-night episodes even where there is a 'top'; it's not about all the possible happy, kinky set-ups, pre-arranged spankings, role plays, 'leather nights', etc. that couples may come up with, to please themselves, as they should.}

Eleven degrees and types of extended domination, in respect to sexual satisfaction.

Choose one or more, that come close to your own views, and explain your choice(s):

For the person (he) who is establishing domination on a continuing or extended, basis,**,

**{Or, if you prefer, 'In a relationship of extended domination,'}


the submitting person's (she) sexual pleasure (climax) is, and should be


[switch genders below, as appropriate]:

1)Allowed fully and freely, though on agreed terms, to completely satisfy to her needs;

2)Allowed as equally as it is available to him, as her inherent, basic right, based on her needs as an essentially equal human being; domination to be established in other less vital need-areas;

3)Allowed a great deal, but as a secondary priority; nonetheless attended to, in virtue of her inherent human rights; her needs require that moderate satisfaction (ways agreed upon);

4)Allowed a great deal, and her needs even being provoked and encouraged; her sluttiness and sexual servitude being a goal;

5)Allowed in moderate 'amount' for her basic need, but completely according to his timing; his control of 'when and where' demonstrating his authority;

6)Allowed to a limited extent, only as a way or avenue to training. (In the way a dog is given a treat). Allowed far less that she might 'need.' (As the dog is kept hungry, for training.)

7)Allowed in limited measure; simply as prime way of establishing total domination of her will; allowed under restriction as necessary in bringing about her total servitude;

6)Allowed as an occasional treat, a lot less that her 'need' might be; as one takes a kid sometimes to the ice cream shop; a need for which she should give up any attempt to control its satisfaction;

9)Allowed rarely, it being a 'need' she should allow to be reduced to the greatest extent possible;

10)Allowed only from very rare, directed masturbation.

11)The dominated person's 'coming' is simply of no concern--it may happen or not; domination through non-sexual avenues.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I'd answer none of the above. I don't care ifn she comes or not, as long as she stays out of my way.

 

[MissTaken]

Pure's Poll

From this sub's perspective:

I chose 6)Allowed to a limited extent, only as a way or avenue to training. (In the way a dog is given a treat). Allowed far less that she might 'need.' (As the dog is kept hungry, for training.)

If a Dominant works harder at making me cum than I do to please Him, it doesn't feel like a D/s relationship in terms of what I enjoy. I feel uncomfortable if a scene is entirely about pleasing me, as has happened in the past. I become embarrassed and a bit unsettled.

I enjoy orgasm control, short term or long term and believe that it is exciting when given that special treat which, of course, must be earned. Besides, who is serving whom, after all?



Great poll. I am curious to see other's responses!

 

[lark sparrow]

All of the above at varying times. It is not static in nature, and She has all of these (plus) at Her disposal.

1)Allowed fully and freely, though on agreed terms, to completely satisfy to her needs;

* Yes, She may and has allowed this at rare times, sometimes for a "treat", sometimes during times life may get very busy and stressful for one or both of us for a short time. Sometimes She may not have the time or energy to direct my sexual needs, and may not be into restriction either, leaving me on my own for a short time while we concentrate on other things.

2)Allowed equally as it is available to him, as her right, based on her needs as an equal human being; domination to be established in other less vital need-areas;

* A right only in that it has been given, yes, this could occur for a time given the right circumstances. She realizes that I am human and have sexual needs.

3)Allowed a great deal, a priority nonetheless in virtue of her rights; her needs require that moderate satisfaction (ways agreed upon);

* Rights are given or taken away - so this could be a possibility.

4)Allowed a great deal, and her needs even being provoked and encouraged; her sluttiness and sexual servitude being a goal;

* Yes, sometimes She likes to do this. Sometimes more is more.

5)Allowed in moderate 'amount' for her basic need, but completely according to his timing; his control of 'when and where' demonstrating his authority;

* Yes, having to ask is a rule - moderate and basic needs being defined by Her, not me, and again not being fixed. The answer is always no to orgasm (as well as self-pleasure) unless I ask and permission has been given for any occasion.

6)Allowed to a limited extent, only as a way or avenue to training. (In the way a dog is given a treat). Allowed far less that she might 'need.' (As the dog is kept hungry, for training.)

* Yes, She likes keeping me very needy at times.

7)Allowed in limited measure; simply as prime way of establishing total domination of her will; allowed under restriction as necessary in bringing about her total servitude;

* Yes, sometimes it's simply because She can.

8)Allowed as an occasional treat, a lot less that her 'need' might be; as one takes a kid sometimes to the ice cream shop; a need she should learn to put aside, giving up any attempt to control its satisfaction;

* Yes, sometimes if I am good, I do get a night of pleasure - at Her discretion - it's not set up that if I do a, b and c then I get a "treat".

9)Allowed rarely, it being a 'need' she should allow to be reduced to the greatest extent possible;

* Yes, sometimes She utilizes this possibility. It could be for training purposes or simply because it is not a priority given other circumstances for a time.

10)Allowed only from very rare, directed masturbation.

* Yes, sometimes She uses this. I love Her instructions regarding masturbation, but instruction is not always a given nor is the right to masturbate.

11)The dominated person's 'coming' is simply of no concern--it may happen or not.

* Yes, I cannot be sure I will be allowed orgasm until She tells me to. Sometimes it's allowed, sometimes it isn't, and for various reasons on both accounts. Sometimes a scene is set up to fully illustrate that my coming is of absolutely no concern, but that is not forever either.

My favorite is Her strict control whether that includes allowing orgasm or not allowing orgasm, but we are not eachother's only concern or responsibility in life, though a priority fortunately. There have to be allowances for such things as sickness, work, stress, time alone, daily realities, etc. for both in long-term domination.

 

[evesdream]

i wouldn't be into that. i'd say 'don't fuck with my orgasms'.

 

[MissTaken]

Rosco et. al.?

A question?

How important is the sub's self esteem to the brand of Domination you deliver?

While you may not care how she feels about herself, is it important that she is self confident enough and self aware enough to take what you offer and enjoy it, rather than end up in therapy?

I am not being facetious, but it seems that a submissive would have to truly feel a sense of self worth in order to be used as clearly and literally as you use a woman without serious negative ramifications.

Just wondering.
Self esteem and sexuality seems to be my focus lately

 

[rosco rathbone]

It would take a very strong self-aware person to accept and process everything I have to give. On the plus side, as I said above, there's more to me than my character here.

I think the right person could run with the energy I have in me, but I don't know if she exists. *unhappy smiley*

 

[rosco rathbone]

i wouldn't be into that. i'd say 'don't fuck with my orgasms'.

......of course, someone who came on strong with THIS attitude is just crying to be fucked with. Although maybe that's what they really want on some level, in which case the proper procedure would be to not fuck with them, etc etc infinite regress...sideways eight smiley

 

[Pure]

Miss T, you asked about self esteem and domination. Are you aware of several critiques of 'self-esteem' as a predictor of various things; as something that therapists and friends do well to strengthen?

Here is a moral I--me, personally-- might draw from what's below: on the 'sub' issue, some will have 'low self esteem', some 'high.' Not much the dominating person does is going to change the situation. This is not a licence for criminal mistreatment of lse subs, but it does excuse the dominating person from the misguided effort of undertaking a therapeutic procedure to raise it.


An excerpt from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,625237,00.html


At last we can abandon that tosh about low self-esteem

The psychobabblers' snake-oil remedies have been exposed as a sham

Polly Toynbee
Friday December 28, 2001
The Guardian


Occasionally a new piece of research demolishes a myth with one fell blow. It does not happen often (social research tends to run along familiar tracks), but once in a while an iconoclastic study changes ideas. No one reading Self-Esteem - The Costs and Causes of Low Self-Worth by Professor Nicholas Emler of the LSE, should feel quite at ease again using a modern piece of psychobabble that has infused the language of sociology, criminology and education without real scrutiny until now.

The accepted view has been that self-esteem - or the lack of it - lies at the root of almost every disorder from delinquency and drug abuse to violence and child abuse. One standard text after another takes this as a given fact without any scientific evidence, repeated as gospel from right to left, from Melanie Phillips to Oprah Winfrey. More than 2,000 books currently in print offer self-help prescriptions for raising self-esteem. A vast array of expensive social programmes in Europe and the US designed to solve drug dependency or delinquency are based on attempts to raise self-esteem. Some have tried to raise the self-esteem of whole schools or even an entire citizenry, describing self-esteem as a "social vaccine" against anti-social behaviour.

Low self-esteem is the zeitgeist social disease. It has many useful attributes: it elevates self-love and sanctifies self-satisfaction. It justifies the introspection of the therapy addict. It excuses bad behaviour, turning perpetrator into victim. For teachers, it makes dealing with bullying, arrogant and disruptive pupils almost impossible, if beneath the insufferable exterior there is supposed to be a whimpering, self-loathing child in need of affirmation and praise.

Professor Emler turns all this on its head. Scrutinising all the available research on both sides of the Atlantic, he finds no evidence that low self-esteem causes anti-social behaviour. Quite the reverse. Those who think highly of themselves are the ones most prone to violence and most likely to take risks, believing themselves invulnerable. They are more likely to commit crimes, drive dangerously, risk their health with drugs and alcohol. Exceptionally low self-esteem is indeed damaging - but only to the victim, not to anyone else. Those with low self-esteem are more likely to commit suicide, to be depressed, to become victims of bullying, domestic violence, loneliness and social ostracism.

There ought to be a collective sigh of relief among many professionals on reading this eye-opening work. It is one of those moments when the blindingly obvious suddenly emerges from a fog of unquestioned nonsense. Teachers, social workers and probation officers do not have to massage the already inflated egos of bullies with unwarranted praise. Asserting his own superiority over his classmates, over-confident of abilities he does not have, it will do no harm to try to bring him down a peg.

Emler looks at the relation between self-esteem and academic success. Does competition in school cause damaging failure? Most surprisingly he concludes that academic success or failure has very little impact on pupils' self-esteem. High self-esteem pupils will explain away failure to suit their previous high opinions of themselves: they make excuses that they were unlucky, suffered some bias or that they didn't try. Odder still, those with low self-esteem will not be buoyed up by academic success either. Sadly, they will regard it as a fluke and continue with their previous low estimation of their abilities. He concludes that it is exceedingly difficult to shift people's pre-existing view of themselves, even with tangible success. Nor is self- esteem any predictor of how well or badly someone will do academically. Even if confidence boosting worked (which he doubts) it would have no effect on exam results.

So where does self-esteem come from? Looking at studies of twins, Emler concludes that genetic predisposition has the single strongest effect. Less surprisingly, after that it is parental attitudes. If they love, reinforce, praise and respect a young child, the effect lasts for life. Physical and above all sexual abuse of children is devastatingly and permanently damaging to self-esteem. Beyond these early influences, everything else that might be done to increase/ decrease self-esteem has virtually no effect. (This is bad news for the therapy business.) An interesting example: it was assumed that to belong to an outcast ethnic minority would harm self-esteem, but Emler finds it has no effect. People draw self-esteem from the good opinions of their own group and reject abuse from outsiders as the fault of others, not their own. [...]

 

[RisiaSkye]

I've seen and/or participated in most of the things listed on the little "survey." For me, though, 11 is the answer.

While orgasm delay/denial is entertaining in scene, as a long term means of controlling a person, it's lacking. Controlling a person's sexual expression and pleasure is fun, and it's kinked. But controlling a person is a whole lot more than manipulating their sexuality; people are simply more complicated than that. To me, it's the difference between running a short-change con and organizing the Enron heist: you play the short game, you make short gains. Play the long game, and you take more risk, but the rewards are greater.

JMO, as always.
RS
Former Dogcatcher

 

[MissTaken]

It would take a very strong self-aware person to accept and process everything I have to give. On the plus side, as I said above, there's more to me than my character here.

I think the right person could run with the energy I have in me, but I don't know if she exists. *unhappy smiley*

As for the first part, I agree completely.

You have to be a very strong, self aware person to truly submit, no matter the dynamics of submission.

(Even with, as you call them , "Daddy Doms?")

As for hte second, she probably does exist but has eluded you to this point