|
|
|  | |
|
|
|
|
|
** I am not currently looking **
If you get excited thinking about owning a bright man that cant say no, this profile may be for you.
I am successful, intelligent, tall, well educated and reasonably attractive.
What I am searching for
I seek a long term, 247 submissive relationship with an intelligent, loving female dominant. 247 means the power dynamic exists in all situations, vanilla and otherwise, be it overt or subtle. It means I spoil and pamper my partner and put her happiness above my own. It means a pedestal of power, chivalry, reverence and respect.
I seek this because thats how Im wired. I act this way when I pair bond. Its not a trade for services nor is it to achieve a relationship with unbalanced SMV. Im looking for a woman that appreciates and enjoys this dynamic. I am a bad match for a woman that wants to be dominated and controlled.
Vanilla life
In normal settings I come across as generally alpha. I am calm, likable, moral (but not religious), and tend to be the center of attention and interest in groups because Im knowledgeable about a broad selection of subjects and naturally strive to lift up and connect to those I talk to. I frequently find myself in positions of leadership, although I dont seek out such positions. This makes the sort of relationship I seek very difficult to pursue normally, as no one I know or meet would ever expect that I seek it.
I tend to make jokes quite often. As an example, if someone asks me if I like cats, Im likely to say something like I love cats! But I cant eat a whole one. (Note I like cats and have kept them as pets. Thats the joke.)
Im interested in pretty much every subject. In terms of media, I tend towards scifi, Marvel, Game of Thrones and the like, or anything deep or quickly witty. I dont watch sports, but Im not opposed to it. I read more fiction before college than most people read in a lifetime (well over 1000 books), so lately Ive been reading more non-fiction, but occasionally fiction slips back in.
I dont feel that Im more competitive than others, and I dont seek out competitions, but if I am in a competitive environment I tend to win. Socially I tend to place myself high, and bring others up to just under my position. I dont put down others and dont gossip.
What I seek in this relationship is to find the One to place above me at all times, to worship, serve, and most importantly, Love, for the rest of my life.
RelocationDating
I can live anywhere in the world, and dont consider relocation a hardship. I have flown across the country just to meet someone (and no, not for sexplay!), and I expect I will do it again. Do not feel that it is a hardship for me to travel to you - it is not, and I dont expect any additional commitment or response from doing so.
Partner Probability
There are very few people that match what I seek. Its not even that there are fewer dominants than submissives, there are few people into lifestyle Ds in absolute. Further filter this by the socially reversed nature of this relationship and the numbers are quite low. Add age - high IQ correlates with low divorce rates - and by the 40s there are simply few unattached people, before getting even slightly picky about desirable traits. Because of this I expect, at minimum, to relocate, and quite likely accept less, or do more (e.g. spend time every day in the gym). The physical aspects can be changed, but the emotional drives (dominance) and raw intelligence cant. This makes it clear where compromise is needed and where it is not.
To give you an idea how fast probabilities shrink, Im in the top 6 in height, 1 in IQ and 3 in wealth, and these are weakly correlated variables, making the percentage of the population that meets these requirements about 0.0018 - and thats divided again for lifestyle Ds (1-2?), single status, etc.
Luckily there are 318 million people in this country. Its only because our population is so high that any of us have any shot at finding what we seek.
Of course on this site theres an even bigger barrier than all of the above - will this person even show up after going through all the trouble of talking to them?
I will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blogs
There are lots of quality blogs out there, but for now I'll just list a couple I've been reading lately. Both are written by practicing female Dominants, and contain exceptional insight.
Ms Kay's FemDom Diary
(https://thefemdomdiary.tumblr.com/)
Enormous, long running blog that's updated frequently with imagery and interspersed text. I find the text most interesting, which can be found here
(https://thefemdomdiary.tumblr.com/archive/filter-by/text).
A Lazy Domme's Guide
(http://lazydomme.blogspot.com/)
No longer updated, best read as a published book with chapters viewed by expanding dates on the sidebar. Plenty of useful information for any Domme that enjoys D/s play and wants to incorporate more into a relationship without requiring a great deal of work.
|
|
|
|
|
BDSM Bits
Finally a computer language where we get to write what we're thinking: Fetlang
(https://github.com/Property404/fetlang/blob/master/README.md) |
|
|
|
|
Rejection
Something I read reminded me of this paragraph from an old, now defunct, Domme profile:
"Regarding my BDSM life, my primary kink is oral servitude. You should have no limits where my pussy is concerned. This means eating my pussy after I've worked out, not showered, while I am on my period and includes watersports. Also, I squirt and you'll be required to consume it and serve as a toilet (for urine). Don't worry, if you need to work up to it, that's perfectly fine."
This is hot of course, but what interests me about it is the motivation behind writing that paragraph. It seems likely at some point a partner resisted oral (intimacy) due to one or more of the above conditions. This is rejection, it's painful, and it estranges her from her partner. It's awful, but sadly, not surprising. Even if the partner isn't bothered by it, they may still resist because they feel that society expects they should. People resist all the time, for lots of reasons. Everything in life is a negotiation and the default answer is no.
This core issue permeates my support for power exchange in a relationship. Rejection of intimacy reduces future intimacy and weakens the pair bond. One rejection easily leads to another, and another. Obviously the relationship failed or she wouldn't be on this site, writing a paragraph full of requirements to ensure she won't be rejected again.
TPE allows intimacy to occur at any time the dominant partner wishes, with a feeling of comfortable certainty that they will not be rejected. It allows relationship dynamics that could devolve into a dead-bedroom situation to be short-circuited and overcome. The relationship makes clear who initiates and who succumbs. It writes large what otherwise is hidden and uncertain.
In a vanilla relationship, if a person is rejected, they feel that perhaps they are to blame. They may feel unworthy, or unwanted. The person resisting may not feel that way at all, they were legitimately tired, or busy, or simply weren't in the mood at the same time. In that relationship, if one person rejects, unintentionally or not, the other may later reject as well to show them what it feels like. A spiral of unhappiness ensues.
Note that it's not necessary for one partner to have unimpeded intimacy for a successful relationship, but it is necessary that a relationship have sufficient intimacy. TPE ensures the dominant has the capability to far exceed their needs and instead fully obtain their wants, which likely exceeds the needs of the submissive (but not necessarily their wants!).
TPE eliminates all the confusion and pain that exists in modern egalitarian relationships where every day is a negotiation, and instead ensures unobstructed intimacy throughout the relationship. I believe rejection weakens love, and elimination of rejection is necessary to have the deepest possible pair bond (love). TPE isn't the only way, but it may very well be the best.
|
|
|
|
|
Polyamory
I like love, so the idea of more love sounds great! But when I see a profile where the dominant is poly and already has one or more partners, I often skip past. This journal entry is to try to understand why that's so.
I've seen it written that a slave (there's a difference between sub and slave, but the line is different for every person) should be so submissive to their partner that they don't care about pleasing, only obeying. That they should do what they're told, with no expected self rewards. After considerable introspection, I find I'm not that kind of submissive.
I want to please my partner, and almost as importantly, be appreciated for pleasing my partner. I want her to be happy with me because I pleased her. This is my wiring, and I need it. Obeying her because it makes her happy is me. Not caring if she's happy and just obeying isn't me.
Keep in mind that I'm submissive because of love. I need that deep bond. I can't do casual play, it doesn't make sense to me. I can't be a part-time sub. I need deep or not at all.
I would make a terrible "property" slave because I have these needs. Specifically: I need to love my partner, I need my partner to love me, I need to please my partner, and I need my partner to be happy with me. Objectification is fun, I'm certainly up for being treated as an object at times - but that's just for play.
It's because of these needs that polyamory is so difficult. Will I be set aside, a toy to be used at some time in the future if the whim arrives? That's incredibly difficult.
Even so, I'm not opposed to polyamory. Like I said, more love sounds great. But my partner will be unquestionably my primary. Nobody else will come close to the place she will hold. Will I be as important to her?
I will not be happy in any poly relationship where I am not my partner's primary. I want to get this out there so there are no misunderstandings, now or in the future. If my partner is polyamorous she's welcome to have other partners. I understand that there are connections made over the years, and they may have value, and they may be something she wants to keep. I'm friendly and get along with everybody. But I need to be her #1 partner, just as she is mine. I need that trust and security in the relationship.
If something happens and I am no longer her primary, the responsible thing is to let me go.
Note: in all cases I am monogamous with my partner.
|
|
|
|
|
Mind Modes
I've noticed at least three "mind modes", as I'll call them: Angry, Horny and Calm. Calm is the default state. We exist in this state most of the time. When we get angry, our mode changes. We might suddenly think violence is a pretty good idea, for example. We feel that force will solve problems. Depending on how well the individual can control their emotions, this newfound love of violence might turn into violent acts. While anger and violence are ancient and continuing societal problems, they're not of particular interest on this site.
For this site, the mode of interest is Horny. When we're horny our mental mode changes. What we value, what we want, what makes sense to us all changes. For example, studies show that disgust is greatly lessened when aroused
. This is how people enjoy anal play while fastidiously avoiding anything related to it in the rest of their lives. A horny person will lick or suck things they would never do when calm. A horny person wants a very different life for themselves than that same person wants when calm. The horny state is frankly amazing, and it make sense to want to remain in that state forever. I think this is the draw of chastity devices, to keep that horny state going indefinitely.
Naturally when people visit this site, they're often horny. It's the nature of this site to create this feeling. This is why, I believe, there are so many journal entries from dominants about subs that don't show up to planned meetings. Those meetings were planned when the sub was horny. At some point in the process of getting ready to meet, that sub will be in the calm state. If the sub hasn't reconciled the two modes of thinking, they'll stop what they're doing and think they avoided a catastrophe.
When I was younger, I felt this dichotomy myself. My emotional control is quite good and I never missed a planned meeting (well, the total number is "2", but I'm still batting 1000!), but I can definitely understand why men do. It's not easy to integrate submissive sexuality with societal expectations of men. This creates a large difference between calm (e.g. should be dominant) and horny (submissive). Without reconciliation, this sort of conflict creates, for example, self-hating gays.
It's quite easy in a calm state to think the submissiveness was a phase, a passing fancy, something that will turn into a much more socially acceptable dominance in the future. And perhaps with some it does just that, but I accept that's not going to happen to me. At this point I've lived half my life with submissive sexuality, with repeated reinforcing. It's not going anywhere. But I understand men who think it might.
I gather dominant women often struggle with the same issue. I've noticed some dominants won't even talk to men under 40, and the context suggests that men under 40 "don't know what they want." That's the lack of reconciliation. The older someone is the more likely they've at least partially reconciled their emotions. Plenty don't, as we see in the news when an older, anti-gay crusader is outed as gay, but some do. It seems likely that reaching the middle of life without wavering in sexual identity helps the reconciliation along.
For this reason I think many dominants are clearly correct in filtering out men who send dick pics. Those men clearly haven't reconciled their emotional states. They're full-on, uncontrolled horny. Only in the horny state will a man think it's a good idea to send strangers pictures of his penis. It's quite unlikely they will still think submission is a good idea when they're calm and it's time to show up to any real relationship meetings. A session, maybe, but not for life.
|
|
|
|
|
Reactance
Reactance
is the emotional state of resisting a challenge to freedom or beliefs. The greater the challenge, the greater the feeling of reactance. Naturally it's unpleasant and something to be avoided. So why does anyone want to be a sub or slave?
It turns out reactance doesn't increase infinitely, otherwise we'd be raging all the time because we can't fly or move things with our minds. If something is impossible, then suddenly the reactance goes away. There's no more stress or pain caused by the restriction in freedom. It's simply a fact that you can't put the moon in your pocket.
Most relationships climb the reactance curve on a daily basis. Each partner maneuvering for position and influence, mostly subconsciously. Who should go pick up dinner? I wish she wouldn't play that music. Why hasn't he mowed the lawn yet? I'd like to go out, but she wants to stay home. Every small incident causes some reactance, some resistance to perfect (attainable) freedom. It never moves over into stress free acceptance because any of the middling annoyances can be solved by making a big deal out of it, thus it's not impossible. The reactance drones on in the background.
This isn't the end of the world. People manage to survive decades of this, and some people are amicable enough to make it work for a lifetime, but it's still extra stress in life that comes from the relationship, every day, draining us of energy and focus that could be life expanding instead of life maintaining.
D/s gives us a different option. In D/s, depending on the structure of the relationship, the dominant may never experience appreciable reactance with regards to the sub at all, because every time there's any feeling of reactance the dominant can immediately eliminate it. When the sub feels reactance, the impossibility of changing it makes that reactance, too, fade away to nothing. A good D/s relationship can be significantly less stressful for both parties than even a good vanilla relationship. Even a very mild D/s relationship is an improvement by capping reactance spikes to a much lower level.
The downside for the sub is more labor, but that work comes with the reward of pleasing one's dominant.
Note: I view lifestyle D/s as a very positive relationship, where the submissive is happy and eager to please and the dominant is happy and eager to be pleased. I don't have insight into other D/s structures.
|
|
|
|
|
Age updated.
I appreciate the eternal optimism this site exhibits by never updating age, after all, I could have discovered the fountain of youth (I live in Florida!). Or, perhaps I found an anti-aging cream the really works. Or perhaps I'm travelling on a space ship at near the speed of light.
All in all I like it. I enjoy math, and I get to do some with every profile visit.
|
|
|
|
|
Relationship Dominant
As I've read profiles and thought on the subject, it seems clear to me that many people are dominant, certainly not faking, but are not sexually dominant. I've started to think of them as Relationship Dominant.
An example might be a stereotypical cuckoldress. She is quite certainly relationship dominant, and wants complete control over her partner. But she wants that submissive feeling from sex, so prefers BBC. Because of the mismatch she doesn't want to have sex with her submissive, but also doesn't want a relationship with a dominant.
It's clear to me in most examples that she's not faking - she's definitely dominant. She knows what she wants and she seeks to get it. There's nothing wrong here, morally or legally, and no one has the right to judge her for her choices. She's not tricking anyone into anything, she's stating exactly what she wants up front. Despite the reputation, there is far more real honesty on this site than any vanilla dating site. But the stereotypical cuckoldress is categorically different from someone that is sexually dominant, even though many of the items on her interest list may be the same.
Arguably there's also a third dominance category, and that's social dominance/submission. It's quite common for profiles to specify they want a man who is alpha outside the home - that's socially dominant. My social dominance is primarily a result of natural authority, i.e. the authority that comes from understanding what's going on and being able to explain to others that needs to be done, the ability to inspire loyalty and respect, as well as the willingness to start businesses and ambitious projects. That said, I have no innate desire to be the leader. It's just a role that needs doing and often nobody else steps up.
Of course nobody is absolutely dominant, or absolutely submissive. Everything exists on a continuum, and can vary by mood. But most people, particularly on this site, have a strong bias in these categories one way or another, and for easy thinking about the subject it's worth using these categories and placing ourselves inside them.
Personally I am both relationship and sexually submissive.
Relationship submission is particularly interesting in that the mechanism within my emotional cluster is so clear. When I pair bond (love) someone I tend to do so very deeply, and saying no to them becomes extremely painful. I can gin up the willpower to do it when it needs to be done, but it's incredibly difficult, and most certainly something I want to avoid at all costs. Additionally, I have no desire to control my partner, at all, and feel sadness at the very thought of it, even when I feel that controlling would lead to better outcomes for my partner (e.g., my partner is gaining weight and doesn't like it).
This feels completely different from sexual submission.
The thing about partitioning dominance in this way is in general use, dominance in one area spreads to others. If I'm with someone that isn't relationship dominant, but is sexually dominant, I expect that sexual dominance will spread into the relationship. There may always be a sexual charge when it does, but it will be there. I can't really imagine a relationship where the dominance strongly switches between sexual and relationship. This is why the above cuckoldress isn't likely to find a man that is sexually dominant and relationship submissive and be able to have a relationship with him. Switching based on context is difficult, not just conceptually but also because sexual arousal happens at different times for different partners, making synchronized switching effectively impossible.
They say when looking for a partner one should write down the three most important attributes, and be prepared to sacrifice on everything else. For me, the most important attributes are sexual dominance, intelligence and (and this is my only kink that isn't based on submission, and even it connects), pretty feet. If those three are met, the rest is flexible, including everything else on my Interests page. Interestingly enough, my interests vary quite a bit depending on which profile I read. It all depends on how I conceptualize the mind of my partner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Female Led Relationships.
There are two kinds of FLRs - formal and accidental. I see accidental FLRs everywhere, in malls, at the beach, at grocery stores, at parties. The woman in front, a slight frown on her face, nose tilted upward, with a man following - a slump in his posture, carrying bags, his eyes down. Neither look happy, because neither are. What should be a happy couple is a sad one, and it all starts with one, common instinct.
"I'll do anything to make you happy." Wonderful, romantic, sincere words. Uplifting words that any woman would be happy to hear. But let's parse the real meaning out: I'll do anything, a promise, a statement of behavior, based on a condition: to make you happy. The man is saying he will do anything for the woman, but only when she's not happy. The first time she isn't happy and he responds promptly to meet her needs she will be rewarded, a tiny spurt of dopamine will bathe her brain and the behavior will be strengthened.
Repeated events strengthen the behavior until unhappiness around her spouse is her default behavior. The husband, feeling pain from her unhappiness, exhibits compliance, and eventually may experience fear and even cower in her presence. Both people are miserable, and the only escape is divorce. "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."
Simply understanding this cycle is enough for smart people to avoid it, but overt power exchange makes this so much easier.
I envision a relationship where any time the woman's needs aren't being met she can smile, perhaps devilishly, and issue commands (or suggestions, that carry the same weight) in a sweet, happy voice, with complete confidence in a positive result. A life cheat code, if you will.
I wonder if this is the lost wisdom of why Christians call for wives to be overtly submissive to their husbands. If so, I agree with the sentiment, but not the gendering.
|
|
|
|
|
True Dominance, True Submission, Fakes
I've seen a few times discussions of what a "true Dominant/submissive" means, often in a context of determining who is "fake". Everyone has their own definitions, and none of them are inherently right or wrong. My own definition is based on sexual orientation, in the same way someone might be straight or homosexual. A Republican representative espousing anti-gay messaging and meeting with gay men for sex in private is a true homosexual - albeit a self-hating one. A woman that tries to be the good housewife and acts submissive but secretly desires to be dominant in sexual situations, and feels a tingle at the very thought of it, is a true dominant.
Separate from being a true Dominant or submissive is the question of being a skilled Dominant or submissive. Some people have vastly more experience and have expended vastly more time studying the art than others, and are therefore far more skilled. They may or may not also be true.
A third factor is motivation, for any particular person the motivation to connect through this site may be sex, love or money.
For any given sub, they may be looking for a true Dominant, a skilled Dominant, or both; they may just be looking for kinky sex, or they may want something very specific and be willing, or even want, to pay. None of these options are better than the others, one just hopes that each pair of people are right for each other.
For me, personally, I seek a true Domme, someone that is sexually excited by the prospect of being in the dominant role and/or experiencing their partner's submission to them, and I seek a motivation of love, as that matches my own motivation. "Skill" is neutral to me as I consider the journey to be the destination.
"Fake" is most accurately applied to anyone that is literally misleading others in material ways, e.g. a male masquerading as a female or vice versa, pictures of others presented as pictures of self, statements of intent that substantially don't match true intent, etc.
"Fake" does not mean "not the kind of Dominant/submissive I want."
I would suggest that much of the confused thinking about "fakes" is created by this site itself. Notice the site allows "Dominant", "Submissive", "Slave" and "Switch". Where's "Top" and "Bottom" or simply "Hedonist"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Age: 34 |
| Fresno,
California |
|
|
|
| |
