So my last entry prompted a bunch of questions (as well as some replies and some emails thanking me for it).  I'm finding some points of view very interesting and thought I'd put them down.

(Disclaimer: this is not a flame or making statements that the way anyone else is doing things is wrong. Different strokes for different folks, right? I just thought these questions were REALLY good and might spark the discussion elsewhere that might go places discussion here didnt consider)

I thought that was a good question and it prompted some thought as well as discussion between me and Evil.  Its true that female dominants are usually pictured in some type of leather, pvc or latex, boots or platform shoes, very hot and very sexy.  Male dominants dont seem to have a "uniform" so to speak.

So it bdsm and/or D/s isnt about sex, why are female dominants dressed for sex?

2) why is it perceived that a female dominant loses dominance if she allows her male sub to sexually penetrate her (and possibly enjoy himself) and yet male domiants are expected to have sexual intercourse with their female dominants and have them orgasm ad nauseum?

This is another really good question that was posed to me via email.  In fact, I had to give this some consideration and yes, this was discussed as well.  Is it that female dominants are supposed to be somehow above sexual pleasure with their submissive that evidently is supposed to be so far beneath them?  Or is it a standard that female dominants are supposedly held to and when they "fail" to maintain that standard, they are no longer seen as that pure Madonna/Mistress and have fallen from grace?  Is the fact that if sexual contact is allowed that the female dominant is seen as a threat, even unconsciously?

3) Can a Mistress and her submissive every be lovers?

Wow.  Now this was really good and this discussion went all over the board.

Now in a power play situation where the Mistress is strictly in power over the male submissive, who is not allowed sexual pleasure or to penetrate her but is there to strictly serve her in a power play situation, then the answer is no.

But what if its not strictly power play but that the protocol is so rigid that it interfers with the real people in the D/s relationship getting to know each other, then again, the answer is no.  In fact, the question came up if, in this case, a Mistress and her submissive could even be real friends.

In my situation, I would like to think that I would be friends with my submissive first before moving into a D/s situation, because of the way I play. Could, in that situation, there be an instance of straight vanilla sex?  Yes and no.  I don’t think I have had straight vanilla sex since 1986.  Lots of sprinkles, lots of toppings, just not whipped. :D

But I think it could happen where there could be a situation where, someone on the outside looking in could consider it a vanilla situation.

(This scenario will bring up another question)

For example, I want a sub who is willing to take the initiative to plan something that he thinks I would like and take the risk to make it happen, even if he isn’t sure I'd like it or not.

Scenario: Work has gotten to be a real trial and I'm stressed out. My sub could plan an evening of pampering and catering to me, without a scene being put into play by me, without an expectation.  Dinner cooking, a hot bath waiting, a nice mixed drink, maybe soothing music playing and after dinner a movie in the DVD player.  And, after all this, his desire to cater to my sexual pleasure without direction, just doing what he knows I like.

Now from my perspective that sounds pretty vanilla. At any point to I lose dominance? No. It’s not something that is lost or found.  It’s not something you have.

ITS WHAT YOU ARE...24/7...DOMINANT.

3a) And from a bdsm or D/s point of view, is that a vanilla scenario?

Now here is the kicker question

4) Is a strict adherence to protocol that allows no deviation set way of doing things an excuse to be a lazy dominant and to not have to take responsibility when protocol is broken and something goes wrong?

Yeah, kinda nasty huh?

Now this is not posed in a power play scenario.  The protocol is everything in a power play.

But, on the average, does strict adherence to protocol or a dominant's "ritual" cover for laziness?

If a dominant's specialty is shibari and her submissive is into electric play or into being beaten with riding crops and the dominant insists on shibari and only shibari because that is what she is good at and that is her "ritual" does this constitute laziness or tunnel vision?

Now I can see that a dominant would want to stick with what they know, I like doing what I'm good at, I won’t lie.  But, for instance lets say shibari is my specialty and my sub doesn’t really get off on it because they prefer electric play.  What says I can’t tie them up in an elaborate manner and surprise them with a violet wand? 

Not a damn thing except what I'm willing to incorporate into play in an effort to play my submissive to the hilt.

I think that communication is key between people and is a prerequisite between a Dominant and a submissive, regardless of the gender and role.  And I'd like to think that most people are in it to not only get something for themselves but to also make sure their partner, again, regardless of gender/role, also get something they desire as well.

I also know that the uneducated will look at sensational issues (like the man who electrocuted his wife w/a stripped electric cord attached to her nipples and plugged into the wall in an effort to have kinky sex) and think that kind of dangerous behavior is the norm and paint the entire lifestyle with the same brush of tar.  It is normal for people to be afraid of and demonize what they do not know whether a religion, a race or a lifestyle.

What I find more disturbing is those within the lifestyle who also paint those who are different from themselves as somehow wrong or "not really" Dominant.  Or those who think that someone who has an actual, honest curiosity about how others play have some type of ulterior motive and that they are looking for a chink in the armor so they can point a finger and show them where they are wrong. 

But what I've found is that there are those out there who have a similar point of view only they aren’t sharing it. They are waiting for someone else to go "hey, have you ever thought of..." and then they get that they are not alone and they have someone to reach out to.

I ran into something interesting today and I almost….Almost….shot an
email going “why?”

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Someone looked at my profile and one of their hard limits is Wicca.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I respect hard limits. I can understand there are certain lines in the sand that cannot be crossed and I fully accept that.  I’ve just never seen someone’s religious preference as a hard limit.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

But, to each his own even though this truly piqued my curiosity.    And even though I am interested in why that is a hard limit, I really do not need to stir the pot at all.  I’ve enough to do, thank you very much, without someone taking offense at my question and lambasting me for what is perceived as an attack as opposed to a request for information.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I’m almost afraid to think what occurred to have that as a hard limit.  I mean my religion is a very personal matter between me and my belief system and its not something I share unless I’m asked and then, I only give as much info as necessary to have the subject dropped unless it’s a conversation with someone I truly trust.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I'm constantly amazed at people who list that they "Tolerate" or "Hate" polyamory.  In fact, that listing is so pervasive, I've started to look specifically for polyamory in the ‘Tolerates’/’Hates’ category on the profiles of those viewing mine.

But I’m curious as to what experiences these people have had with polyamory that has made it so abhorrent to them.

I have run into people who think a poly relationship is 24/7 freaky circus sex or that it’s swinging or it’s a reason to promiscuous.  It isn’t.

I’ve been in a committed poly relationship with a married couple since late 1996/early 1997.   If it had just been sex, I can tell you, we would not have lasted this long.

Our relationship is based on mutual friendship and respect.  We truly love each other as people.  In this time we have been through things that would have caused a lot of monogamous couples to rethink their relationship or just split.  One partner had health issues that meant they were not able to have sex for an extended period of time.  If it had just been sex, it would have ended right there.

I won't even begin to go into the amount of work and communication it takes.  Thats a whole chapter of info all its own.
 

So, if you have ‘Tolerates/Hates’ polyamory on your profile and you email me, you may want to put in the reason for this listing.  1) It would grab my attention and make you stand out, 2) it would give me some insight on your thought processes and experiences and 3) it will probably get you a response as opposed to my just deleting your email immediately.

I'm finding it amazing that speaking to people as people, not as objects or categories, is something seen as new.

but don't think just because I speak normally or politely that gives one license to buck.

Always remember, dominance doesn't have to be exhibited by an iron boot and baseball bat.

Just because I ask doesn't mean you have a choice. 

I'm finding it amazing that speaking to people as people, not as objects or categories, is something seen as new.

but don't think just because I speak normally or politely that gives one license to buck.

Always remember, dominance doesn't have to be exhibited by an iron boot and baseball bat.

Just because I ask doesn't mean you have a choice. 

Hmmm....so what constitutes vulgarity? 

I found it interesting that the rules dictate "no vulgarity". 

Who determines what is vulgar? 

I mean yes, I think we can all agree that somewhere there is a line in the proverbial sand that, perhaps, is a point where things become vulgar to most folks. 

Or thats total BS?

And at what point does verbiage become vulgar? Is one profanity any less vulgar than another? is one 4 letter profanity less vulgar than another 4 letter profanity and does a 12 letter profanity trump everything for vulgarity?

 Are there vulgarity police????  on a site dedicated to sexy spanking  and domination  and submission??? really???

I imagine, at some point, when I'm venting about my day or pissing and moaning  about gawd only knows what thats pissed me off , I  reckon that entry or my profile will be canned.

gee...and what will I lose? a free profile? big deal.

so, prepare.   You might think you know... but ya don't.