ylhtm1

One aspect of dom/sub relationships that seems to be rarely discussed is this: Although the submissive gives up (most of) her/his rights once the relationship is established, both sides have equal rights in making the decision to establish the relationship in the first place. Therefore the submissive potential partner will often find herself/himself expressing what may come across as demands, thus "topping from the bottom." But he's NOT on the bottom - yet. But there are two problems with THAT (why does every issue I discuss always produce more issues?).

 First of all, even during the negotiation stage, the roles of the two partners are developing and becoming more solidified. Therefore, if the negotiations are successful and they enter into a relationship, suddenly the submissive (let?s assume it?s a male) has to abandon his assumptions of entitlement and equality, whereas the dominant woman must immediately assume complete (or almost complete) authority in the relationship, after having established the habit of allowing her now-submissive companion to have an equal say in determining the nature of the relationship. Switching roles like that is not easy ? and in fact I personally happen to find it exceptionally difficult.

 Secondly, that negotiating stage is usually nowhere near as clear-cut as I made it sound in the previous paragraph. It?s not really true that the two partners are equal during the negotiating stage, and then they flick a switch and the domme has all the authority. During the negotiating stage, it?s not at all clear how much power, or how many rights, the potential sub has. It?s easy to say that the domme lays down the rules and the sub can either take it or leave it, but I don?t think that?s realistic. Relationships are complex things, and BDSM relationships are that much MORE complicated.

 At the very beginning of the negotiating stage, neither partner is likely to have a great emotional commitment to making things work. But, like any other developing relationship, the success of the relationship will gradually become more important to both parties. But to get to my point here (I?m dithering), the potential sub can easily be mystified and confused as to just how much of a right he has to express preferences about the nature of the potential relationship. He doesn?t want to overstep his boundaries and top from the bottom, but he also wants his domme to know the aspects of any relationship that are going to be important to him ? some of them, perhaps, so important that the relationship will not be worth entering into without them.

 I?m not talking here about details like, ?I want you to make me wear panties.? I?m talking about things like financial tributes, frequency of contact, level of service, and what areas of the sub?s life will be subject to her control.

Too Comfortable?

 I once had a meeting with two young dommes in Denver.  I met one of them (Princess Anna) in a public parking lot, and then followed her to the house where the session was to be conducted.  When we got there, the second domme (Ms. Riley) asked Princess Anna about my behavior up to that point.

Princess Anna reported that my demeanor had not been satisfactorily submissive.  She thought I had an attitude.  Ms. Riley asked, ?Did he walk in front of you, or interrupt you??

Princess Anna said, ?No, nothing like that.  He was just too ? comfortable.?

The noteworthy thing about this exchange is, that Princess Anna was absolutely right!  Even though I want to submit, and I want to truly feel that submission deeply in my heart, that feeling doesn?t come naturally to me.

I should mention that these two women may have been more effective in making me feel truly submissive than any other dominant women I have ever been with.  The conversation I related above was carried on as if I wasn?t even there.  I wasn?t asked to defend my actions or my attitude.  I felt like a schoolchild listening to my mother and my first-grade teacher talking about my behavior in class.  I don?t know how they managed to establish that kind of atmosphere among the three of us, but they did.

But, despite their talent at making me feel small and inferior, by the time I left that evening I was once again feeling as if I was almost their complete equal.  In fact, their original intention had been to film a BDSM session (with me as the sub, of course), but we got into a long conversation about our respective philosophies of dominance, submission, switching, female supremacy, and my philosophy and policies concerning education.  Eventually they realized it was too late to begin filming, so we all went home.  Only once, that I recall, after that first conversation concerning my attitude, did they effectively remind me of my place: I put my elbows on the table (we were sitting around a picnic table in the back yard), and Ms Riley told me sharply to take my elbows off the table.

This same thing has happened in many of the relationships I have developed with dominant women.  And it?s hard for me to explain why without coming across, even to myself, as smug and conceited.  My only explanation is that I?m educated, intelligent, articulate, and interesting to talk to.  And, obviously, I?m aware of it!  So despite my desire to be submissive and dependent, I go into each relationship and each meeting with the deep-seated assumption that I am (at least) her intellectual equal, and that I have proven my ability to conduct my own life responsibly and successfully.

This raises at least two questions:  First, if I feel that way, then why do I want to submit at all?  Why should I feel the need for someone else to govern my life and behavior if I think I?m so smart and so accomplished on my own?  Secondly, why do these dominant women let me get away with it?  After all, I don?t explicitly challenge their authority; I don?t demand my freedom or deliberately disobey.

And then there?s a third question or issue: What I have said above doesn?t describe all the relationships I have had with dominant women.  I can think of at least three cases in which the domme has effectively made me feel truly submissive and dependent toward her.  And, interestingly, in all three cases, the relationship has failed because I have felt I wasn?t getting enough attention from the domme.  Perhaps that?s because when I DO feel dependent and submissive, that feeling produces a real need for constant monitoring and control of my life and behavior, and these women (understandably) haven?t had the time to devote that much attention to one pissant math teacher from Las Vegas.

Like many of my essays, this one has raised questions instead of answering them.  But at the moment I?m supposed to be preparing all my materials (tests, quizzes, answer keys, and other handouts) for the upcoming semester, and I?ll have to begin exploring the answers to these questions in my next entry.

Is it All About Me?

The thoughts expressed in this blog so far have centered on what *I* think and what *I* want in a relationship.  That seems natural, since I'm the one writing it!  But I am aware that there are submissive men who apparently want no other reward than the opportunity to serve.  They are willing to come over to their Mistress's house and do whatever chores she requires of them, and they expect nothing in return from her, not even an expression of appreciation.  They are ? apparently ? treated simply as unpaid workers, and there is no personal connection established between them and the Mistress.

I look at these relationships ? or non-relationships ? in much the same way as I do the financial slavery scene that I wrote about a few days ago.  If the submissive male really wants nothing more than the satisfaction of serving, aren't there more worthwhile opportunities for service than running errands for a woman who doesn't care anything about you?  How about volunteering for the Big Brother program, for example?  There are so many service and charitable opportunities for people who feel a craving to be useful to others, that I don't understand why someone would choose to expend their service efforts for the benefit of someone who doesn't really need their services that badly, and who has no personal interest in the people serving her.

There is a school of thought, which I mostly agree with, that says no one ever does anything unless he or she is getting something out of it.  There are some extraordinary exceptions ? a soldier throwing himself on a grenade, at the probable cost of his life, in order to save his comrades, for example ? but for the most part I think it's true that people do things only if they see some benefit to themselves.  So I have to wonder: just what do submissive men who are "100% service oriented" believe that they are getting out of their service?

One possibility, which I fear is accurate in all too many cases, is that these are men who have a serious self-esteem problem.  They really believe they are bad and worthless people, beneath the notice of ordinary humans ? especially women ? and they actually seek situations in which that self-image will be reinforced.  In my opinion, those people need therapy, not a domme.

(One reason I believe that the situation described in the above paragraph is common, is that in my domme role I have been approached several times by women who are in this very category ? they truly believe they deserve to be abused and degraded.  I have, of course, refused to enter into a dom/sub relationship of that kind.  It would just make their problem worse.)

On the other hand, perhaps the men who do this are working toward abandoning their selfishness.  Maybe the opportunity to serve without any reward ? even recognition, appreciation, or friendship ? helps them toward that goal.  I understand this attitude entirely, since it's one of my own goals.  I referred to it in the piece I wrote about forced bisexuality, when I talked about the goal of instinctive obedience.  I'd like to 're-program' myself so that my immediate reaction to any order from my Mistress is to obey, without even reflecting upon how her command relates to my own personal desires.  But for me, I have to have a personal connection with the woman I serve.  I have to feel that my efforts to serve her are appreciated, and that my submission to her is accepted as a treasured gift.  If that's not the case, then I can almost certainly find better opportunities for service.  I'd rather go to an elementary school and read to the kids, as I'm going to do the day after tomorrow as part of a yearly 'Read to the Kids' program.

When have been in the service of a domme, just having her pat me on the head and say, "good boy," has been enough to produce a tingle running up and down my spine.  I so much want to please her that my world revolves around her approval.

But perhaps the kind of service opportunities I seek are not humbling enough for some men, for the very reason that I am expecting appreciation.  Perhaps I should be setting my goals higher (or lower?) and look for opportunities to provide UNappreciated service, and that would make me a less selfish person.  All I can say is that the idea doesn't appeal to me very much.  And therefore when I see an ad from a domme who proclaims (as many ads do), "This is all about me ? you don't matter at all," I turn away.

PAIN

I'm not a masochist.  I'm not a pain slut.  I think I have a somewhat lower pain threshold than the average person.  So when I plan to spend time with a dominant woman, I am definitely NOT looking forward to pain.

But pain, it seems to me, is a necessary component of a dom/sub relationship.  Nothing is as immediately effective as the infliction of pain in getting a submissive person to understand that he is dependent on his Mistress.  She becomes the source of both his pain and his pleasure.  If he is restrained or dangling over his Mistress's lap while she inflicts pain on him, then he comes quickly to understand that she is the source of his pain and of his potential relief.  It is only by pleasing her that he can be released from the pain he is feeling.

Under those circumstances, the Mistress very quickly assumes a Godlike (or Goddesslike) image in his eyes.  Religion sprang up among humans because so many tragic things happened to them.  People came to concentrate their fears and hopes upon one individual, or a collection of individuals, whom they called gods.  Floods, earthquakes, starvation and epidemics occurred because they had displeased those gods.  The only solution to their tragic condition was to please the gods so that that would enjoy good harvests and good health.

In the same way, a Mistress who inflicts pain, and graciously releases her submissive pet FROM pain when she is pleased with him, will succeed in implanting in her sub the notion that she controls his pain and pleasure, his welfare and his sorrow.  Pain is such an immediate experience that it drives most other considerations from the mind of the inflicted person.  And so, the submissive male's mind becomes wonderfully concentrated on pleasing his Mistress, and pleasing her becomes his highest priority.

As it should be.

So, pain is very nearly a necessity in a dom/sub relationship.  I wish it weren't so, but it probably is.

I have already said that I'm not sure whether the current popularity of cuckolding and small penis humiliation is being driven by dominant women who enjoy those activities, or by male submissives who crave that sort of humiliation.  On the subject of foot worship, however, I truly believe (without concrete evidence) that it is popular primarily because the dommes like it.

I've never understood what it is about women and their feet.  A few years ago I ran across a reference to some brand of shoes ? some name like Malono Blatnik ? and I did some Internet research and discovered that those shoes started at a minimum price of $400 per pair!  There may be some men who are willing to pay $400 for a pair of shoes, but such desires are MUCH less common among men than among women.  There are many women who take real pleasure in owning more than fifty pairs of shoes ? but I've never even heard of a man who owns that many.  I'll bet that even fabulously wealthy narcissists like Donald Trump and Hugh Hefner don't own fifty pairs of shoes.  Personally, I own two pairs of shoes, plus two more pairs of slippers.

Almost every dominant woman I have ever been with has wanted her feet worshipped.  I've probably made it obvious above that I have no interest in foot worship as an activity in itself.  But foot worship is one of the clearest examples of what I said in my previous entry:  it doesn't matter whether I enjoy the simple activity of kissing a woman's foot.  What matters to me is the gratification that I feel from knowing that I am giving her pleasure.

I am apparently pretty good at foot worship, according to the dominant women whose feet I have worshipped.  It apparently comes naturally to me to do the right things.  So my foot worshipping experiences have been happy ones ? not because I enjoy the feeling of a woman's toe in my mouth, or the taste of the sole of her shoe on my tongue.  They have been happy because the domme has been pleased and appreciative.

There is, of course, also the psychological effect of the natural posture of the foot worshipper to be considered.  When worshipping a woman's foot, I am almost always either naked or wearing a pair of women's panties.  I am kneeling, and in most cases have to bow my head down further in order to get my mouth on the woman's foot.  That forces me to look almost directly upward, along the entire length of the woman's body, in order to see her face.  Obviously, our relative positions emphasize our difference in status ? and that's the whole point of almost all BDSM activities, for me.

So, when people ask me whether I'm "into" foot worship, the answer is no.  I never fantasize about foot worship, and the femdom stories that really turn me on don't usually include foot worship scenes (and it's worth noting that most such stories, which are written primarily for a male audience, do not include foot worship).  But when I'm the physical presence of a dominant woman who wants her feet kissed, or her shoes cleaned with my tongue, I'm happy to do it.

If she's pleased, then so am I.

Whenever I have scheduled a first session with a professional domme, her first question is always, "What are you into?"

I never know how to answer.  I've filled out a lot of questionnaires asking me to rate my interests in various fetishes on a scale of 1 to 5, perhaps with a zero score allowed for "hard limits."  But with the exception of things that are hard limits, almost all of the traditional and even not-so-traditional activities that can occur in a dom/sub session are OK with me.  How well I enjoy them will depend entirely on how well the domme uses the various fetishes and activities to evoke a feeling of submission and intimacy in me.

I can say I prefer OTK spanking to being whipped or caned while bending over a table or sofa.  But that's only because (1) the OTK position comes closer to implying a parent/child relationship, and being put in the position of a child is one of the most naturally submissive feelings a person can have.  And, (2) there is a greater feeling of physical intimacy when my unclothed genitals are pressed against the lap of a woman who cares for me enough to discipline me.  However, the dominant woman is completely capable of destroying both the illusion of a parent/child relationship and the feeling of physical intimacy, if she handles the scene improperly.  On the other hand, bending me over a table and flogging me can provide every bit as intimacy and feelings of submission as an OTK spanking if it is done by a skilled and caring domme.  In particular, if the dominant woman finds OTK spanking personally distasteful for some reason, but she really gets off on applying a cane to a submissively presented ass, then her own comfort level and her own preference are going to come across in the communication between us, be it verbal or non-verbal.  And in that case, my own pleasure as a submissive will be much greater if she does what SHE finds most satisfying.

Remember, the fundamental point of submission, at least for me, is to please my Mistress and to feel that she appreciates my efforts to please her.  If that's happening, I'm happy and fulfilled.  If it isn't, then I'm just as unsatisfied as she is.  So it doesn't matter what objective, physical technique is used to get us there.

The answer to the original question, then, is "whatever works."  And that's why I far prefer a long-term relationship over a "Take your pants down Whap Whap Whap have a nice day" session.  If both the dominant and submissive are sensitive, thoughtful, and attentive to each other's signals, then they can work toward a collection of activities that will fulfill the needs of both parties.  If that happens, then more than likely the list of things they end up doing will be very different from the answer to "What are you into?" that the submissive would have given prior to that first "session."

This principle applies to many, many activities and fetishes, and I probably have a slightly different take on each one.  So in the future I'll probably write about feminization, infantilism, foot worship, public humiliation, role-playing scenes, chastity, corner time, mouth soaping, body worship, face sitting, golden showers, and probably a bunch of others that don't occur to me at this moment.  But in a sense, I'm probably going to say the same thing about every one of those things: I don't have to have any of those activities included in the time I spend with my Mistress.  They are all just roads to the same ultimate goal: sincere and genuine feelings of submission and intimacy ? feelings which are reciprocated by the Mistress.

Is sex a necessary part of a dom/sub relationship?  Obviously I wouldn't presume to lay down a law that has to apply to all D&S relationships, but I can speak for myself.  And, of course, the answer is complicated.

The dominant side of me is receding, but it's still there.  And when I'm the dom and the sub is female, then sex is definitely necessary.  Not so much because I'm desperate for sex all the time (which, being male, I pretty much am), but because if a female sub withholds sex, then she really isn't submitting.

There's a difference between the typical "limits" that any sub has the right to establish, and a refusal to engage in sex.  Limits generally are things that will do physical damage to the person, or which will endanger something in their vanilla lives, such as marriage or career.  Or a submissive person might find certain activities excessively distasteful or demeaning.  But sex doesn't fall into any of those categories, at least not for normal people (and ABnormal people probably shouldn't be looking for someone to submit to anyway!).  When a supposedly submissive woman says, "I'll submit to you, but I won't have sex or do anything sexual," she is withholding the one thing that would establish her wholehearted submission.  I suppose that wouldn't be entirely true if the dominant male were uninterested in sex, but after more than fifty years of being interested in dominance and submission, I've never heard of any such man!

In a female-dominated relationship, the issue is different.  Psychologically, most men don't feel that having sex with a woman is an act of submission on their part, and most women don't feel that demanding sex FROM a man is an act of dominance on their part.  [It's true that I'm sort of assuming the old "double standard" by saying that, but society has yet to completely cleanse itself of that notion.]  Therefore the likelihood of a submissive male insisting on the right to withhold sex from his Mistress seems too small for it to be an issue.

There is sort of an in-between activity ? namely oral pussy-worship ? that provides many dominant females with sexual satisfaction, denies that satisfaction to the male, and, if staged properly, can put the male in a powerfully submissive frame of mind as well as provide the female with a feeling of power.  Perhaps I should write about that as a separate topic sometime, but I'm far too tired to do so tonight.

Well, is the dominant female obligated to have sex with her submissive male(s)?  Well, that question pretty much answers itself - of course not.  I do know, and have played with, some dommes who offer explicit sex as part of their "service," even during their first session with a (paying) submissive.  I'm certainly not going to criticize them for that, but from my own personal perspective those women are less effective at dominating me when I know that sex is on the menu from the very beginning.  It seems to me that sex with a Mistress ought to be a very special reward that would be bestowed only after a period of devoted service ? and even then, the Mistress would never be obligated to reward her slave that way, nor would the slave have any right to expect it.

On the other hand, will I be bold enough to claim that I will be perfectly happy with a continuing relationship with a dominant woman if there is never going to be any sexual contact of any kind?  I think it would be dishonest of me to say that.  For me (and, I'm quite sure, most submissive men), submission is partly, mostly, or almost entirely an erotic experience.  In my case, I'm not sure how big a part of my submissiveness is sexually based, but certainly a significant part of it is.

Now this is a long way from saying that I have to have explicit sex with my Mistress or else I will be dissatisfied with the relationship.  There are many, many activities that can address the sexual component of my need to submit, without involving my Mistress taking me to bed and opening her legs for me.  In fact, ironically, even the denial of sex ? a requirement that I ask permission before masturbating, or to be placed in chastity ? might be enough to satisfy the sexual needs of the relationship for me.

In a way, I don't think it's proper for me to compile or publish a list of things that a Mistress could do to fulfill the sexual part of my need to submit.  To do so would be 'topping from the bottom,' and it is supposed to be the Mistress who determines what their mutual activities will be, and what aspects of her slave's life she chooses to govern.

At bottom, however, at least for me, dominance and submission is about intimacy.  And intimacy in which all sexual activities and contact are permanently excluded really isn't intimacy at all.  Eventually, I expect I would find that exclusion to be frustrating.

And what does "eventually" mean?  Ah, well .... that is a secret.  Even from me.

So what do I think about monogamy, faithfulness, and exclusivity in sexual and/or romantic relationships?  I think it?s a lousy idea.

What is there about a romantic or sexual relationship that makes anyone think that a person should have only one such relationship at a time, or (as some people believe) only one such relationship in a lifetime?  Does anyone feel that way about having lunch with someone, or singing a duet with someone, or playing a game of chess?  Of course everyone would say that the notion of exclusivity would be ridiculous in those cases, but why is it any less ridiculous in the case of romantic or sexual relationships?

How is a romantic relationship damaged because one or both people have another romantic relationship with someone else?  The whole idea makes no sense to me at all.  It makes as much sense as saying that if you put a second glass of water on a table where there is already another glass of water, then the first glass of water will be harmed by the presence of the second.  Yes, of course that sounds stupid!  It is stupid!  And just exactly why is the idea that one romantic relationship is harmed by the existence of another, any less stupid?

Discovering a new person, allowing that person into your life, identifying that other person as a permanently (or even temporarily) special person in your life, is one of the greatest and deepest joys that life affords.  But what is there about that process that necessarily requires that you go through it with only one person, or only one person at a time?  Is something magical supposed to happen when you become married, engaged, or otherwise ?committed,? so that you no longer have any desire to have that experience?  Or, when you DO have that desire, are you supposed to suppress it?  Why?  What harm are you doing to your original or permanent partner?  What harm are you doing to anyone?

There do seem to be a lot of people who have a strong desire to be somebody else?s ?one and only.?  I really have to wonder, though, whether that desire is a fundamental part of the human psyche, or whether it is just the way people have been taught that things are ?supposed? to be.  One reason for my skepticism is that I personally have NO such desire whatsoever.  Why would I insist on being the ?only? person that somebody else loves romantically?  Why would I insist on being the only person that someone else had sex with?  I am in love with my wife, I am in love with my dear friend Lisa, but it would seem sort of weird to me to feel that I had to be the ?only? man in either of their lives. (More on that in a moment.)  To me, the desire to ?possess? another human being as exclusively yours, is a dangerous and even a potentially evil desire.  People are not slaves; they are not owned by others (unless in a consensual dom/sub relationship!), and that includes their husbands and wives.

I suppose that if the other person?s additional romantic attachments noticeably reduced their interest in me, or gave me less time with them than I really wanted to spend, or caused me to feel that I was intruding into the other person?s life or time when I wanted their time and attention, then that could be a  problem.  But first of all, that doesn?t have to happen.  And secondly, even if it does happen, all parties should be able to work things out so that everyone?s needs are more or less accommodated.  Every successful relationship involves compromises and negotiations, and there is no reason that compromise and negotiation on this subject should be any more impossible than on any other.

I think part of the reason that I feel that way is that my life is not totally centered on my relationship with my wife, or even my two relationships with my wife and Lisa.  I do not believe that marriage and family are a refuge from a cold, cruel world.  I think of marriage and family as a jumping-off point, a launching pad from which to engage and discover the wonderful things and wonderful people that are out there in a fascinating and joyful world.  My other activities are not secondary to my family.  In fact, from the very first day my wife met me, she has known that the focus of my life is teaching (she knew that because she was a student in one my classes!).

I don?t demand, or even want, the constant and total attention of anyone else.  I do want (and I do have) someone to come home to, and who comes home to me.  Someone with whom I can share almost anything that I feel needs sharing, someone with whom I plan a life together.  Someone in whose love I feel confident, and who feels confident in my love for her.  Someone who takes it for granted that if she?s going to fly to Sacramento tomorrow, I?ll rearrange my schedule to take her to the airport, and knows that she will do the same when the situation is reversed.

And I?m not talking entirely theoretically here.  During our marriage, my wife has had (at least) one experience with another guy that got at least to the brink of romance and sex (maybe beyond the brink; I didn?t cross-examine her about it and I never will).  I suspected it was going on at the time, and it didn?t bother me.  She confirmed it a few years later, and it didn?t bother me.  In fact, I know the guy himself slightly, and I like him quite a bit (I liked him before, and I like him still).  Furthermore, I was actually happy that it had happened, because it gave my wife an increased sense of self-confidence.  She is one of those many women who permanently feel unattractive; she figures that if I hadn?t fallen in love with her then no one else would have.  That one experience proved otherwise, and actually did her a lot of good.

It is true that there are some things which, as a matter of practicality, can be done with only one person at a time (unless you have a family that consists of more than two consenting adults of any combination of genders ? something which I do not oppose at all, but which is beyond the scope of what I?m writing here).  But sex and romance do not have that same quality.  It?s a physical fact that I can come home at night to only one person, but it is NOT a physical fact that I can be in love with only one person, or engage in sex with only one person ? any more than I can have lunch with only one person.  (Actually, I suppose it?s theoretically possible to come home to a different person every night of the week, but the logistics would be difficult.)

OK, what does my wife think?  The short answer is that she knows (or at least strongly suspects) that I have other romantic attachments.  For one thing, she is aware that I have a strong interest in erotic dominance and submission.  She has no such interest, and she is more or less aware that I have some outlets for that interest.  She doesn?t complain, but told me long ago that she doesn?t want her face rubbed in it.

I had one fairly serious romantic relationship with another woman while my wife and I were separated in 1997, and my wife didn't have any trouble figuring out that it was going on.  We?ve talked about it since that time, and neither of us felt that it was anything to cry over.

Several ago, I had a wonderful experience developing an online relationship with a woman who more or less ended it when she found I was married.  (Her surprise was only a matter of miscommunication; I had never told her I wasn?t married nor had I made any effort to conceal my marital status.)  The process of discovering each other and allowing each other intimately into our lives was a wonderful one, and I will treasure the memory forever.  Yet that relationship ended; both of us were deprived of what was a happy and wonderful experience for both of us.  Who benefited from the termination of that relationship?

The time I spent with that woman online was not time that was taken from time I would have otherwise spent with my wife.  It probably caused me to get my final exams graded later than I would have otherwise, burn fewer CD?s than I wanted to get done during those weeks, and allowed a bunch of miscellaneous, boring paperwork to pile up my desk at home.

Some women are willing to have sexual relationships with people they don?t care about and who don?t care about them.  But in many cases those same woman won?t do it with a married man, even if they truly do care about him and he cares about them.  That seems very odd to me.

Granted that most marriage ceremonies entail vows; but  those vows are a product of a society that for most practical purposes doesn?t let you enter into a formal marriage relationship without taking those vows.  To say that ?faithfulness? is an obligation because of those vows, is just circular reasoning.  It?s saying that the person has that obligation because he has that obligation.  The real question is: why does any person or any institution require that promise as a prerequisite to establishing a marriage?  Historically there was a biological basis having to do with childbirth.  Sex resulted in children.  Children have to be fed, nurtured, and protected.  Those responsibilities were difficult or impossible for a woman alone to fulfill, and without any externally imposed obligation to form a family unit, it was all too easy for the man to simply abandon the woman and force her to carry the burden alone.  But in 21^st century America that line of argument is almost entirely irrelevant, especially because of the prevalence of birth control and safe sex.  And even when the biological/childbirth argument was relevant, the relevance applied only to the sex act, and not to intimate romantic relationships outside of marriage.

So it seems to me that the burden of proof is squarely upon those who support the idea of exclusivity in romantic and sexual relationships.  In is undebatable that romantic relationships bring joy to those who participate in them, regardless of whether those relationships are within a formal marriage or not.  Those who insist on exclusivity are therefore obligated to show how and why exclusivity compensates for the loss of that joy.  And simply attacking me or anyone else as an immoral, Godless slug does not constitute an answer.

There are some BDSM practitioners who don't believe in limits.  Almost all of those people are dominants!  However, they do have a point.  A fulfilling dom/sub relationship involves a deep trust between the partners.  Once the two people get to know each other well, the submissive partner should be able to trust that his Mistress will never take him beyond the point that he can tolerate.  If he believes that he has the right to demand that his Mistress not engage in certain activities, then he is keeping power to himself that rightfully belongs to the Mistress.  (This leads to the commonly-made observation that there is a far greater degree of responsibility, and a far greater burden, placed on the dominant member of a dom/sub partnership than there is on the submissive.  But that's not what I want to discuss right now.)

I have a few limits that I don't think I would ever be willing to go beyond: breath play, scat, permanent markings, or anything that would seriously jeopardize my career or marriage.  However, there are some other activities that belong in a sort of gray area.

Perhaps the most notable of my "gray area" activities is forced bisexuality.  There seem to be many dommes for whom requiring their submissive males to suck cock is a major source of pleasure.  Right now, I wouldn't be willing to do that.  I am very straight, and the thought of sucking cock is, to put it mildly, highly unpleasant*.  But one of the joys of submission is to put myself into that "sub space" in which I can abandon my personal preferences and live exclusively to please and obey my Mistress.  The ultimate goal is to respond to her preferences, her convenience, and her orders, immediately and exclusively.  My brain would not even access the part that stores my own likes and dislikes.  She wants me to suck cock, so I suck cock.

I once had a conversation on this subject with a very thoughtful and intelligent domme.  She believed, and I agree with her, that most submissive men who come to her and want to be forced into bisexuality have an inner desire to suck cock, but they don't want to admit it to themselves.  So they want someone to "force" them to do what they secretly want to do anyway. 

I'm not in that category.  I really don't want to do it.  My goal is not to suck cock ? it's to get myself into such a state of worship and obedience that I would suck if I knew my Mistress wanted me to do it.  I'm definitely not in that state yet ? not even close.  But achieving that degree of submission and obedience is a serious goal of mine.

*I need to emphasize here that my "straightness," and my repulsion at the thought of sucking another man's penis, are NOT indications of disapproval of homosexuality.  I have many gay (and lesbian) friends whom I both love and admire, without reservation.

A second gray area ? a darker shade of gray than the forced bisexuality gray ? is the subject of cuckolding.  Like forced bisexuality, cuckolding appears to be growing in popularity among dommes.  And also like forced bisexuality, and like small penis humiliation, I'm still not sure whether the popularity is really based on the preferences of the dommes, or whether the Mistresses are just "responding to the marketplace" because these themes are growing in popularity among submissive men.  In either case, I have a definite problem with cuckolding, but perhaps it's a problem that could be overcome.

I hold strongly to my belief that a dominant/submissive relationship is one in which each partner is treasured by the other.  I have no interest in the kind of relationship in which the submissive person is submissive because he is a filthy worm, or is beneath his Mistress's notice.  The submissive person gives his submission freely, believing that giving himself to another will enable him to get in closer touch with his best self, and to cast off the short-sighted and selfish desires that interfere with his fulfillment as a human being.  He is grateful to his Mistress for agreeing to take charge of his life.  She, in return, is grateful for his obedience, his love, and his service.  She does not regard him as worthless or beneath her notice.

But cuckolding, in my mind, contradicts that description of the relationship.  The Mistress is saying that there are other men who are worthy of her sexual attention, but that he, the submissive, is not.  And she rubs his face in it (figuratively, if not literally!).  She goes out of her way to remind him of his lowly status ? not compared to her, but compared to other men she has chosen as her lovers.

I have read some attempts to justify cuckolding on the grounds that the sexual services provided by lovers are much less important, and less appreciated by the Mistress, than the submission provided by her submissive pet.  I'm not ready to disregard those arguments entirely, but so far I find them unconvincing.

It's important to note that there are a couple of things I'm NOT saying here.  I am not saying that the Mistress should be monogamous and have sex with her submissive pet and no one else.  Far from it ? I don't happen to believe in monogamy at all, and I'll write an entry on that some day.  And I'm also not saying that the Mistress should have sex with her submissive at all, or that he has a right to demand or expect that.  I'm only objecting to the practice of cuckolding as a specifically designated domme/sub activity.  I'm objecting to the practice of choosing sexual partners specifically for the purpose of demeaning the submissive male.

A frequent component of the cuckolding scenario is small penis humiliation.  The usual idea here is that the Mistress is forced to find other lovers because her submissive's cock is too small to satisfy her.  I might write a separate entry on this issue some time, but if small penis humiliation were to be made a part of a cuckolding scene in my case, I would have a hard time taking it seriously.  For one thing, I've been in enough locker rooms, and seen enough porn scenes, to know that I am just about average in terms of endowment ? my penis is slightly thinner and slightly longer than the average, which works out to ? average!  Secondly, my self-esteem with regard to my masculinity isn't tied to the size of my penis; I've always thought the entire issue was silly.

Anyway, it is possible that I could be convinced, some day, that being cuckolded is just another step on the road to complete submission, and that my willingness to participate in that kind of a scene would be treasured and appreciated by my Mistress.  But I'm definitely not there yet, and I remain a skeptic.

I mentioned above that "permanent markings" are among my hard limits.  But the only reason for that is that I'm married.  If I were single, or married to my Mistress, I would consider it a privilege to have a tattoo or piercing, under my normal street clothing, proclaiming that I am the property of my Mistress.  Indeed, I would crave the privilege.  But in the real world, as things stand now, it must remain a fantasy.

So, in my mind, a compassionate Mistress will always be in touch with the feelings of her submissive pet.  She will come to know him so profoundly, that she will know without asking him how far she can take him.  He, for his part, will trust her to make her own judgments on what is to be required of him, because he knows that she possesses the wisdom and compassion that entitles her to make those decisions.  If he finds himself taken beyond his previous boundaries, he is grateful to her for doing it.  His goals are submission, selflessness, service, and obedience.  And she is gently and effectively leading him ever closer to those goals.

Another kind of female-dominated relationship in which the Mistress's nudity reinforces the lowly status of the male slave is the cuckold relationship ? something that seems to be increasing in popularity, at least in the fantasies of lifestyle Mistresses.  I want to write a separate entry on that some day, so I won't go into detail on it right now.  But nudity often plays a part in those relationships, because (1) the Mistress may require her submissive male to prepare her for her dates in an extremely intimate ? and frustrating to the male ? manner, and (2) she may require him to clean her out with his tongue after she has had sex with her lover.  My guess is that the second of these almost never happens in real life, since there are obvious mechanical issues as well as health issues; but it seems to be a frequent theme in cuckold stories and videos.

In a completely different, and almost diametrically opposite manner to the nudity themes I've already discussed, the Mistress may be unapologetically aroused by the presence of a naked male, and may wish to keep him that way for her own erotic pleasure.  Although sexual slavery is much less common in female-dominant relationships than it is in male dom / female sub situations, it still does exist.  These cases are sort of the opposite side of the coin to the ones in which the male's sexuality is ignored.  In this case, the submissive male is aware that he is there purely for his Mistress's pleasure.  He is simply a penis.  He commands no respect or appreciation for his skills and experience, his intelligence or education, or even his money.  His only worthwhile attribute is dangling between his legs.

Being the sex slave of a beautiful woman is probably a powerful fantasy for lots of guys who aren't even submissive.  But, like many erotic fantasies, I suspect it's a lot more powerful in the imagination than it is in real life.  Contrary to popular opinion, men aren't always in the mood.  Being required to "get it up" whenever the Mistress snaps her fingers is probably a more challenging duty than most men would guess.  That's probably one reason why Mistresses who keep male slaves for sexual purposes more often demand oral worship than penetrative sex.  [Of course, a second reason is that cunnilingus provides the woman with sexual pleasure without allowing the male slave an equal experience.  Indeed, some Mistresses keep their male slaves in a chastity device and/or handcuff his hands behind his back before he begins his pussy-worship duty, just to prevent him from exciting himself.]

In all the cases I have mentioned so far, nudity is used to reinforce the wide separation in status between the Mistress and her submissive male.  But some female-dominated relationships involve a strong mutual affection between the dominant woman and her male.  The Mistress sees no need to constantly remind the male of his inferior status; his submission is understood and taken for granted by both parties.  She appreciates and treasures his submission, and his adoration for her is indeed the source of his submission.  He doesn't think of himself as a worthless dog; he simply values his Mistress so highly that submission to her wishes comes naturally to him.  Thus, the two of them have a sexual relationship, but one in which both sides understand that it is she who will determine the nature of their sexual activities.  The two parties to such a relationship will frequently be naked with each other, and to an outside observer it may look as if this is a vanilla relationship between equals.  But a closer examination will reveal that nudity and sexual activity occur exactly when she decides she wants it to occur, and that the male never initiates any of those events.

Nudity plays several roles in a dominant/submissive relationship.  The most obvious occurs when the submissive person is required to be naked or partially naked, while the dominant partner is fully clothed.  The effect of that situation is obvious: the person without clothing is being shorn of his or her dignity. There is no clothing to buffer him from the gaze of his Mistress, who can see him completely naked, completely natural.  He has nowhere to hide.  Moreover, the lack of clothing places him to some extent in the same status as an animal.  He is nothing but a collection of flesh and bone; there is no recognition that he has a personality or any intelligence to contribute.

There is a second scenario, not often recognized, in which the exact opposite situation contributes to the difference in status between the dominant female and the submissive male:  The woman can parade herself naked, or in lingerie, in front of her submissive pet - making it clear that his sexual response is of no concern to her whatsoever.  Since he is not taken seriously as a sexual partner, she can remain completely comfortable in her own nudity without paying any attention to his arousal.  It can be her way of saying, wordlessly, "Your reaction to my body is of no interest to me; you're just a pet, just a slave.  I may ask you to bathe me, or to provide me with any other physically intimate service, and there will be no hint of sexual intimacy between us.  You may be aroused, you may be frustrated, but that is your own problem."

I have a video of a submissive man shaving his Mistress's pubic hair in accordance with her instructions.  He is fully clothed, if I remember correctly, but she pays no attention to him other than to issue directions to him.  She is on the ground, half-supine, propped up on her elbows, and chatting happily with her (female) friends.  Neither she nor her friends give any recognition to the man who is carefully and gently shaving her pussy.  To be that close to the most intimate area of the woman he worships, and yet to have to treat her in such a servile and objectified manner, must be fiercely frustrating.

I once had a similar experience, being assigned to bathe a very attractive young Mistress.  I was instructed precisely how to undress her, the proper temperature of the bath water, and how to bathe each portion of her body.  I was amazed (and, I think, disappointed) to find that I experienced almost no arousal.  I was focused on following her exact instructions.  I was so worried about doing something she might disapprove of that I never gave myself the luxury of an erection.  I was wearing panties, if I remember correctly, and any arousal would have been clearly visible.  But she hadn't forbidden me an erection or even made any reference to the possibility that I might be sexually attracted to her.  She simply considered my sexual responses to be irrelevant.

The situations described above certainly don't exhaust the possibilities of the roles that nudity can play in a domme/sub relationship.  But once again I have expended all the time I can afford on this, and I will continue later.

          Even though I've been into dominance and submission for over 50 years, I still haven't resolved exactly what I want from a dominant/submissive relationship.  On the one hand, I love the IDEA of a total power exchange.  Putting myself completely into the hands of a woman I trust has often approached an almost uncontrollable craving on my part.  But it isn't that simple - not by a long shot.

          For one thing, as powerful as my longing is, I have other, equally powerful longings: primarily my large collection of (vanilla) interests and ambitions.  I'm an intense person, and once I become interested in something, I want to explore that subject as deeply as I'm capable.  I also want to involve myself actively in whatever organizations or events there are that concern themselves with that interest.  So it isn't sufficient for me to say that I love music, for example.  I want to once again become a member of a really good choir.  I want to learn to play the guitar.  I want to buy an electronic keyboard and really learn how to use it well.  I'm also fascinated by the history and philosophy of science and mathematics.

          I've joined the History of Mathematics and Philosophy of Science Special Interest Groups within the Mathematical Association of America.  But it's frustrating when I don't have the time to participate in their fascinating online discussions of various topics, or when I find myself unable to follow a particular discussion because I haven't had time to study the original sources on the topic being discussed.

          Then there are many issues within mathematics education that I would like to explore for myself as well as contributions I think I can make to various discussions and projects going on, both at my own school and nationwide.

          I have mentioned only three of my passionate interests here, and they are probably the three at the top of the list - but there are MANY others.  However, this abbreviated list is sufficient to get the point across.

          The problem is not that a mistress wouldn't be sympathetic to those interests and ambitions of mine.  I would never give myself to a mistress who wasn't supportive of those things.  The problem is that if I want to pursue those interests in my typically obsessive manner, I wouldn't be devoting the time - and more importantly, the attention - to my Mistress that would be necessary for a fulfilling relationship.

          Many submissive guys "solve" this problem by having periodic "sessions" with a professional - or sometimes a lifestyle - mistress.  But to me, that's a very artificial approach to the situation.  When I gaze into my Mistress's eyes, I want to see the woman whose approval I desire above all others, the woman whose displeasure I fear above all others, and the woman whom I long to serve above all others.  I can't just put that feeling on and off like a baseball cap.  It's a feeling that needs to be developed with sincerity over a period of time.

          I'm just getting started on this topic, but I've already spent a lot of time on it.  So I will continue when I can.

 One of the things I find annoying about the femdom community is the confident way in which many dominant women - and some submissive men - give advice to men about how to get their wives interested in a female-led marriage.  I suppose that this might work in a very small number of cases, but I strongly believe that in the vast majority of cases, an  attempt to convert a previously happy, vanilla marriage into a female-dominated relationship would be a disaster.  Indeed, I have known of cases in which such an attempt has led to the breakup of the marriage.

Like anything else, it's possible that dominance and submission could turn out to be an unexpected pleasure for someone who is introduced to it for the first time.  But I am convinced that the great majority of people are either into it or they're not.  And by the time they are well into adulthood, they know whether they're into it or not.

In my case, any attempt my wife might make to become a dominant wife would turn her into a completely different person.  Not that she's submissive; she simply regards it as an article of faith that two intelligent, responsible adults should treat each other as equals in a marriage relationship.  We have a marriage in which neither of us tries to exert any authority over the other.  Any attempt to make it otherwise would be a pretty dramatic violation of an unspoken long-term agreement between us.  She would be both shocked and resentful if I tried to change that arrangement - even though she is well aware of my interest in BDSM.

Besides that, from a purely selfish and personal point of view, I don't want my wife to be my Mistress.  I love her they way she is, and I am very happy with our marriage the way it is.  If she became my Mistress and we embarked on a female-dominated marriage relationship, then she would become a different person and we would have a different marriage.  I don't want that at all.

Thus, I seek female-dominated relationships outside of my marriage.  There are those who consider that to be immoral on my part, but I'm not really interested in anyone else's definition of morality.  My need for domination is strong and deep, and has lasted for decades - since I was a child.  It is not a superficial desire for transitory pleasure.  Certainly there are dominant women who reject a relationship with a married men, and I wouldn't presume to impose my own opinions on them any more than I would accept their judgement of me.  But fortunately there are other dominant women who have a less narrow and judgmental attitude.  For me, a relationship with a woman like that is the best I can do.

And, to be realistic, I'm not sure I could be truly happy in a 24/7 relationship over the long term, in which all my decisions were made by a dominant Mistress.  Even if she and I lived in the same city, I probably could tolerate being a 24-hour slave only for an occasional weekend at a time.

But oh, how I would live for those weekends!

But something happened this past week that makes me want to broadcast the following as widely as I can.  Besides, I don't think anyone reads my blog here, so there won't be anyone to offend.

  So here it is:

Just two days ago, one of the very very dearest friends of my life died of a drug overdose at the age of 32.  She was a former student of mine, and simply the most angelic human being I have ever known ? no exceptions.

Although she had been my student for a year (sometime around 2001) and we had sort of teased and flirted with each other at the time, we didn't become real friends until a couple years later when we started exchanging e-mails.  In every message she sent to me she would say, "Say Hi to Anne [my wife] for me." Eventually I asked her why she always said that, when she had never even met Anne.  Her answer was, "I know I've never met her, but she's important to you, so she's important to me."

In August of 2003 her grandfather (with whom she was living at the time) became fatally ill, and she worked with the hospital fiercely and desperately to keep him alive.  Just two or three days after he died, I was in the Math Help center, talking to one of the tutors.  I turned around to go back to my office, and gasped: There was an Angel of Light, standing silently in front of the window, waiting for me with a basket of every known variety of See's Candy.  It was Michelle, who had driven to campus in the middle of notifying family and friends of her grandfather's death, and preparing for his funeral.  But it was my birthday, and she wanted to make sure she personally delivered a gift.

During our friendship she only lived here in the Vegas area for a few months.  (The rest of the time she was in Minnesota or L.A.).  So most of our communication was by phone or e-mail, although she did visit a couple of times a year.  Every message she sent or left on our voice-mail would end with her gushing over how much I meant to her and how much she loved me and Anne.  As Anne once said, if anyone else had left those messages we would think they were totally over the top ? but in Michelle's case she was absolutely sincere.

[Somewhere in here I should insert the fact that Michelle was one of the two or three most beautiful women I have ever known ? but that really doesn't matter at all.]

Michelle wasn't my very closest friend; she and I never had the kind of deep intellectual and philosophical conversations that I sometimes have with others.  But, without exaggeration, in my mind Michelle came to represent everything that was good, kind, and thoughtful in life.   In the last five years, whenever I've been tempted to do or say anything unkind or ill-tempered, I would ask myself, "What would Michelle think of me if she knew I had done that?"

Michelle knew I idolized her, and she told me she didn't deserve that.  I think that's why she never confided in me about whatever demons were in her life that drove her to drugs.  She didn't want to shatter my illusions.

I think her overdose was probably a semi-suicide.  She knew she was dying, and before she descended into unconsciousness she asked that I be notified and told how much she cared for me.  To the last moment of her conscious life, she was the kindest, most thoughtful and considerate human being I have ever known.

God I loved her - and God I'm going to miss her.