RE: Really not that much into sex

RE: Really not that much into sex (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 10:08:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ...In the last few relationships I was in, I found that I was most comfortable just pretty much being whatever the woman I was involved with wanted me to be. Usually that meant a sexual relationship, but it was always directly on her terms, when and how she desired it. Satisfaction on my part was usually reward based, or in some cases, awarded as an afterthought when she felt it was probably time for it to happen. And I was pretty happy with that... when this slave was completely new to all the terminology that folks use around here, she thought the above paragraph was what defined "submissive"...and was overjoyed that there were folks out there that could appreciate such an arrangement. her observations since then have been that the above paragraph is *not* what most who wear the label of submissive are about...and furthermore, *not* what most who wear the label of dominant are seeking. I dont quite agree with what you say, but I do agree that this is so with most Male submissives. Most (but not all) Males dominant and submissives are all about the sex and less about the connection. But I do wonder....that although the slave Beth is indeed very submissive, how she would feel if she wasnt being fully used by her Master and leading a celibate life? I do not identify as slave, but I do know that if I was pleasing a master but he wanted nothing to do with me sexually, I would not feel like I was good enough and my self esteem and worth would suffer. The full use does make one feel beautiful, sexy and valued? perhaps you have misunderstood what this slave was trying to say, then. this slave wasn't referring her comments to not being used by Him sexually, AT ALL. littlesarbonne's comments that she quoted above didn't say NO sex at all, as in celibacy, but sex directly on HER (his dominant's) terms/desires, *not* his ( the submissive's). Master could pimp His slave out for $$, if that is what He desires, but just because He doesn't, it doesn't make this slave feel as though He doesn't fully use her.

littlewonder -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 10:28:41 AM)
my submission is not focused upon nor motivated by sex. It is however, upon obedience and subservience to Master. Sex however is important to me not because of bdsm but because it's a healthy part of a long term committed relationship whether it be bdsm or not.

lusciouslips19 -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 12:11:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ...In the last few relationships I was in, I found that I was most comfortable just pretty much being whatever the woman I was involved with wanted me to be. Usually that meant a sexual relationship, but it was always directly on her terms, when and how she desired it. Satisfaction on my part was usually reward based, or in some cases, awarded as an afterthought when she felt it was probably time for it to happen. And I was pretty happy with that... when this slave was completely new to all the terminology that folks use around here, she thought the above paragraph was what defined "submissive"...and was overjoyed that there were folks out there that could appreciate such an arrangement. her observations since then have been that the above paragraph is *not* what most who wear the label of submissive are about...and furthermore, *not* what most who wear the label of dominant are seeking. I dont quite agree with what you say, but I do agree that this is so with most Male submissives. Most (but not all) Males dominant and submissives are all about the sex and less about the connection. But I do wonder....that although the slave Beth is indeed very submissive, how she would feel if she wasnt being fully used by her Master and leading a celibate life? I do not identify as slave, but I do know that if I was pleasing a master but he wanted nothing to do with me sexually, I would not feel like I was good enough and my self esteem and worth would suffer. The full use does make one feel beautiful, sexy and valued? perhaps you have misunderstood what this slave was trying to say, then. this slave wasn't referring her comments to not being used by Him sexually, AT ALL. littlesarbonne's comments that she quoted above didn't say NO sex at all, as in celibacy, but sex directly on HER (his dominant's) terms/desires, *not* his ( the submissive's). Master could pimp His slave out for $$, if that is what He desires, but just because He doesn't, it doesn't make this slave feel as though He doesn't fully use her. Thats not quite what I meant. I think you are a happy girl and rightly so. Yes, the sex and the submission go together. I just wonder how happy any submissive , especially one whos brimming with sexual desire would feel if her sexual desires were not being met and she was told her submissive path no longer required being used in a sexual manner?

lusciouslips19 -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 12:27:06 PM)
I guess what I have been trying to say that even if the sexual components are under the Dominants terms, the O.P. and Slave Beths needs are being met. I am very happy when that happens. I have heard Darksteven say that in a good D's relationship, the Doms wants are being met, while the subs needs are being met. So its an easy path when you are both in harmony. Just wondering what would happen with the submissive, if things go off kilter in that regard?

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 12:30:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 I gues I have heard Darksteven say that in a good D's relationship, the Doms wants are being met, while the subs needs are being met. I have never understood this sentence, my wants are met just as much as his, just that it is my want to submit.

porcelaine -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 12:30:47 PM)
i enjoy sex merely because i love the intimacy and the act as well. i don't need to have the exchange when i engage. sex on its own is very stimulating. on the other hand the same is true when i surrender control as well. if it never leads to penetration and release i'm satisfied with that. i suppose it is truly balanced in my head and i don't see either as separate acts but different manifestations of pleasure. i would never wish to do without either one. i'm far too wanton for that. porcelaine

lusciouslips19 -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 12:31:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 I gues I have heard Darksteven say that in a good D's relationship, the Doms wants are being met, while the subs needs are being met. I have never understood this sentence, my wants are met just as much as his, just that it is my want to submit. Well, I think of it as it is done his way, but your needs are still being met.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 12:37:09 PM)
quote: Thats not quite what I meant. I think you are a happy girl and rightly so. Yes, the sex and the submission go together. I just wonder how happy any submissive , especially one whos brimming with sexual desire would feel if her sexual desires were not being met and she was told her submissive path no longer required being used in a sexual manner? lusciouslips19, I think there is a slight disconnect here. What I think beth was trying to say was really something else -- in that what was confusing for -her- was the idea that the servant, rather than the Keeper, might attempt to control the sexual nature of the relationship, and make the sexual aspects the focus whether or not it pleased the Keeper... not whether it happened at all, but who was in charge of deciding whether or not it happened. (beth, please correct me if I'm off in my interpretation here.) I think that part of the issue is that not -every- submissive individual or servant is, as you put it "brimming with sexual desire", or at least may not be such within the context of their authority-based relationship. For you, it goes hand-in-hand, and I suspect that it is notably difficult to perceive of a situation where that wouldn't be the case, from your PoV, but we've had several servants in the household who had sexual and/or romantic relationships outside of the bounds of their authority-based relationship, or who were celibate-by-choice, and where the fact that there was no sexual expression within the authority-based relationship didn't matter, because they didn't see their service relationship in those kinds of terms. I think that you're right that a servant who was very needy in the sexual area and who presumed inclusion of sexual authority within the bounds of what xhe considered an authority-based dynamic would probably feel something profoundly and deeply missing, and even a person with an active but not overwhelming libido who saw the sexual aspect as integral, would be unhappy if there was no sex and those needs couldn't be met somewhere else -- which is why it is, IMO, so important to make sure that everyone is on the same page. See, while I might find a servant -very- aesthetically pleasing, sexual activity is in the "not part of the primary dynamic, but may be fun occasionally if it doesn't screw up the primary dynamic" column... so someone with needs as you describe, and who obtains self-worth from being sexually used would probably be really unhappy in our household. In fact, I know xhe would... because we've had a couple of servants who were in -exactly- that position... and the reason that they were released is because we discovered that one cannot say "well, I want you to keep me, and even though I said this was important, I guess it really -isn't-, if saying it is means you won't keep me". Dame Calla

porcelaine -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 12:37:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 I gues I have heard Darksteven say that in a good D's relationship, the Doms wants are being met, while the subs needs are being met. I have never understood this sentence, my wants are met just as much as his, just that it is my want to submit. it is merely reciprocity. his wants can't be satisfied unless he's willing to receive. her needs cannot be met without her willingness to give. when they exchange simultaneously each person is fulfilled. he needs to control, but something must be given before that can occur. she needs to yield and must have a receptacle desiring her submission. porcelaine

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 12:39:44 PM)
quote: Just wondering what would happen with the submissive, if things go off kilter in that regard? This I can answer (and did a little at the bottom of my last post) from our perspective. If this area is 'off', the person usually won't stay with us, and that's not a bad thing. If the sexual aspects are crucial, then being in a place where those aspects are not focused on regularly would be miserable, and, as you've said earlier, could lead to some self-esteem issues and a sense of feeling "half-used". DC

Mercnbeth -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 2:49:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ...In the last few relationships I was in, I found that I was most comfortable just pretty much being whatever the woman I was involved with wanted me to be. Usually that meant a sexual relationship, but it was always directly on her terms, when and how she desired it. Satisfaction on my part was usually reward based, or in some cases, awarded as an afterthought when she felt it was probably time for it to happen. And I was pretty happy with that... when this slave was completely new to all the terminology that folks use around here, she thought the above paragraph was what defined "submissive"...and was overjoyed that there were folks out there that could appreciate such an arrangement. her observations since then have been that the above paragraph is *not* what most who wear the label of submissive are about...and furthermore, *not* what most who wear the label of dominant are seeking. I dont quite agree with what you say, but I do agree that this is so with most Male submissives. Most (but not all) Males dominant and submissives are all about the sex and less about the connection. But I do wonder....that although the slave Beth is indeed very submissive, how she would feel if she wasnt being fully used by her Master and leading a celibate life? I do not identify as slave, but I do know that if I was pleasing a master but he wanted nothing to do with me sexually, I would not feel like I was good enough and my self esteem and worth would suffer. The full use does make one feel beautiful, sexy and valued? perhaps you have misunderstood what this slave was trying to say, then. this slave wasn't referring her comments to not being used by Him sexually, AT ALL. littlesarbonne's comments that she quoted above didn't say NO sex at all, as in celibacy, but sex directly on HER (his dominant's) terms/desires, *not* his ( the submissive's). Master could pimp His slave out for $$, if that is what He desires, but just because He doesn't, it doesn't make this slave feel as though He doesn't fully use her. Thats not quite what I meant. I think you are a happy girl and rightly so. Yes, the sex and the submission go together. I just wonder how happy any submissive , especially one whos brimming with sexual desire would feel if her sexual desires were not being met and she was told her submissive path no longer required being used in a sexual manner? but that isn't what you said. you inquired how *this slave* would feel...and then dismissed this slave's answer as "not what you meant" because she didn't agree with you and brought in "any" submissive to your arguement. which is basically this slave's point. this slave's observation is that MOST who call themselves "submissive" have limits and conditions to their submission that the other partner (labelled dominant) must submit to...which MOST, who call themselves "dominant" are all too happy to submit to. this slave's submissive path is all about submission...not dictating when and where and how and with who she will have sex, so that her submissive sexual desires are met.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 2:57:15 PM)
quote: ...I think there is a slight disconnect here. What I think beth was trying to say was really something else -- in that what was confusing for -her- was the idea that the servant, rather than the Keeper, might attempt to control the sexual nature of the relationship, and make the sexual aspects the focus whether or not it pleased the Keeper... not whether it happened at all, but who was in charge of deciding whether or not it happened. (beth, please correct me if I'm off in my interpretation here.)... Dame Calla, you interpreted it correctly...not sure if luciouslips19 is intentionally being obtuse or what, but... this slave was VERY confused at the concept of limits(hard or soft), safe words, "earning" submission and all the other hoops that "submissives" put "dominants" through before they will engage in a relationship with them and actually start submitting. she thought it was pretty straight forward...submissives submit...dominants dominate. submissives that call the shots was a real mind-bender for this slave!!! not that there is anything WRONG with it...just that this slave perceives submission a tad differently.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 4:11:21 PM)
~fr~ For me, sex and BDSM are virtually unrelated. BDSM and sadism are NOT foreplay for me. I will cheerfully rip up great masochists that have no sexual appeal for me in the slightest. Does that sexually arouse me? Maybe, I honestly am not thinking about sex at those times! Now, a hot man or woman who is a great masochist, well... superduper, hubba hubba, and all that. I am not about to pass up a great maso, or a great servant, just because of sexual incompatibilty.

Steelslilbit -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 4:40:07 PM)
quote: Yeah, I know it's confusing. Switches are complicated, at best. ~thinks she may have found her new best friend!!~ LOL. That is putting it mildly, at it's least..... Sex to me is a non-issue. If Steels wants it, He takes it...and if He doesn't want it and either andi or me do, we seek out each other. After the for crap relationships i've been in, and some poor repercussions with childbirth, sex isn't all that interesting for me. i'd rather be beaten into a deliciously wibbly puddle any day. lil bit

MaamJay -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 7:32:16 PM)
I still enjoy sex and want rather more than Master is usually able to provide. So if I am looking at a potential permanent 24/7 sub, then I would require him to desire sex with Me and be able to perform with due diligence! If that didn't float his boat, there would be a problem. Consequently all those who desire only to be cuckolded and think they would be off the sex hook as I've got Master, are reading the situation wrongly and are not the boys for Me. However, when and if they get it would be under My say so not theirs, and I wouldn't want them pouting or shirking duties because they didn't get it x times this week. So they would need to be something like little sarbonne and also get satisfaction out of providing good service and the power exchange. If I am just looking at a play situation or some other temporary arrangement, then sexual chemistry is much less important, I will enjoy what I can with each person within their (and My) limits. This was definitely one of the more thought-provoking threads though! Maam Jay aka violet[A]

porcelaine -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 8:17:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth this slave was VERY confused at the concept of limits(hard or soft), safe words, "earning" submission and all the other hoops that "submissives" put "dominants" through before they will engage in a relationship with them and actually start submitting. she thought it was pretty straight forward...submissives submit...dominants dominate. submissives that call the shots was a real mind-bender for this slave!!! not that there is anything WRONG with it...just that this slave perceives submission a tad differently. well stated beth. i was going to respond but i think you handled it nicely. [;)] porcelaine

lusciouslips19 -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 9:44:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ...I think there is a slight disconnect here. What I think beth was trying to say was really something else -- in that what was confusing for -her- was the idea that the servant, rather than the Keeper, might attempt to control the sexual nature of the relationship, and make the sexual aspects the focus whether or not it pleased the Keeper... not whether it happened at all, but who was in charge of deciding whether or not it happened. (beth, please correct me if I'm off in my interpretation here.)... Dame Calla, you interpreted it correctly...not sure if luciouslips19 is intentionally being obtuse or what, but... this slave was VERY confused at the concept of limits(hard or soft), safe words, "earning" submission and all the other hoops that "submissives" put "dominants" through before they will engage in a relationship with them and actually start submitting. she thought it was pretty straight forward...submissives submit...dominants dominate. submissives that call the shots was a real mind-bender for this slave!!! not that there is anything WRONG with it...just that this slave perceives submission a tad differently. LOL. NO! Iam not trying to be obtuse. I think you have a wonderful, relationship and your submissive needs are being met and you and Merc fit together very well. I suppose if your needs for say something important to you like submission itself were not being met, the U/us would not have clicked the way it did. But I was thinking, you are so happy and he is so happy....BUT what if you werent happy? WHat if in his dominance, he did not want to fulfill a certain need of yours? For example, What if the need for submission is not being met? What I am trying to find out is, How easy is it to submit to something that one does not want to submit to? I'm really not talking specifically about sex. For some no sex would make them want to leave, for others, something else. For instance their was a specific poster who submitted to someone but then as a dominant he decided he no longer wanted her submission? This has just led me to questions about the fact that its easy when what you are doing is something that is one of your needs. Like Submission in and of itself. When I say the word"you",I am talking about the universal "YOU", not specifically you. SO I am wondering about being submissive to a request that is actually submitting to something that makes one unhappy. Not when submission is easy, but when submission is a difficult road. I dont think you specifically that I know of have submitted to something that was a limit or hard for you to do. I may be wrong. I am just swirling with the "what ifs"?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 9:52:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 I gues I have heard Darksteven say that in a good D's relationship, the Doms wants are being met, while the subs needs are being met. I have never understood this sentence, my wants are met just as much as his, just that it is my want to submit. I don't get it either. If I'm not meeting my dominant's needs as well as her wants, what the heck am I doing there? I don't even want to be there if she's not getting her needs met by my submission.

lusciouslips19 -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 10:02:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ...I think there is a slight disconnect here. What I think beth was trying to say was really something else -- in that what was confusing for -her- was the idea that the servant, rather than the Keeper, might attempt to control the sexual nature of the relationship, and make the sexual aspects the focus whether or not it pleased the Keeper... not whether it happened at all, but who was in charge of deciding whether or not it happened. (beth, please correct me if I'm off in my interpretation here.)... Dame Calla, you interpreted it correctly...not sure if luciouslips19 is intentionally being obtuse or what, but... this slave was VERY confused at the concept of limits(hard or soft), safe words, "earning" submission and all the other hoops that "submissives" put "dominants" through before they will engage in a relationship with them and actually start submitting. she thought it was pretty straight forward...submissives submit...dominants dominate. submissives that call the shots was a real mind-bender for this slave!!! not that there is anything WRONG with it...just that this slave perceives submission a tad differently. Well, I am submissive but I am alone. It is not healthy for me to submit to any dominant or anyone who wants to tell me what to do. SO,I do see things differently. Because when I have submitted to just anyone, even if just play, there have been times when I was left empty and depressed afterward because of the powerful connection I felt from submission, but the dominant did not want to pursue more. While alone, I have to raise a child and be a strong mother. I also cant submit to anyone on the street and be taken advantage of. I also have to work and command the respect and attention of a room of adults as an Instructor. So to me submission is a luxury that I am not able to persue. It may be natural for be to submit but that is something I have learned to supress to function in the world. I also think it is my job to protect myself from the unscrupulous until I find my Dominant.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Really not that much into sex (8/27/2009 10:09:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder my submission is not focused upon nor motivated by sex. It is however, upon obedience and subservience to Master. Sex however is important to me not because of bdsm but because it's a healthy part of a long term committed relationship whether it be bdsm or not. Eloquently and succinctly articulated as always. The only thing I'd word differently is that for me, my submission is based upon and driven by my love for my partner, or similar deep emotional attachment. Without that, there is no submission for me, because submission is simply how I feel love and express it to my partner. Sex, in and of itself? Just as with my submission, it has absolutely no appeal to me in the absence of a romantic relationship with my partner. If the emotional attachment is not there, neither the sexual attraction nor the urge to submit are there, either.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625