Dominant - Love Involved

[catalina_francisco]

I have a question. Do you think the "lows" of a 24/7 D/s relationship are worse or better than a 24/7 vanilla relationship?

To a great extent, posts about the not-so-good days in a 24/7 D/s relationship could be said about marriage generally. So I'm curious - is that we're really talking about? The realities of living with someone 24/7? How does D/s affect the lows and the highs?

Having done both, I tend to think the D/s style is worse if for nothing more than the fact there is often a higher expectation (I am not interested in debating abusive vanilla relationships as I think we mean to discuss healthy relationships here), and there is usually a higher level of observation and answerability applied. In the D/s style there is also the added pressure of living in a way which is not mainstream, so often is not something you can go and complain openly about to a trusted friend over coffee just to get it off your chest. You can bring it up without supplying certain details, but then they usually make observations based on their mainstream knowledge which is understandable and it is then difficult to continue without saying why that mightn't apply, and then have to try and explain and deal with their surprise/shock etc. Also in the D/s style, it is not an option as a sub to just get up and go from a drive to cool off, or suggest they stick it where the sun don't shine and hope to resolve matters better later. IME, vanilla marriage meant you still needed to talk and work things out, but there were far fewer variables involved, far less formality involved, and far less pressure overall.

Catalina

 

[lil_slave_rose]

Having done both, I tend to think the D/s style is worse if for nothing more than the fact there is often a higher expectation (I am not interested in deabating abusive vanilla relationships as I think we mean to discuss healthy relationships here), and there is usually a higher level of observation and answerability applied. In the D/s style there is also the added pressure of living in a way which is not mainstream, so often is not something you can go and complain openly about to a trusted friend over coffee just to get it off your chest. You can bring it up without supplying certain details, but then they usually make observations based on their mainstream knowledge which is understandable and it is then difficult to continue without saying why that mightn't apply, and then have to try and explain and deal with their surprise/shock etc. Also in the D/s style, it is not an option as a sub to just get up and go from a drive to cool off, or suggest they stick it where the sun don't shine and hope to resolve matters better later.

Catalina

*grins* well see for us, this is an option. if the 'argument' is bad enough, we can and WILL walk away to cool off. more than likely however, it will be Him who walks away and comes back to deal with it when He's not angry. it's a promise we've made to each other and we intend to keep that promise. just as we've promised never to go to bed angry. i don't think that just because you're submissive means you can't get up and go for a drive to cool off if the argument is that bad. maybe not in your situation.....but for me, depending on the situation, it would probably be encouraged to give us both that time to think and cool off.....wow this thread has really really gotten off topic....but the discussion is a good one

 

[catalina_francisco]

*grins* well see for us, this is an option. if the 'argument' is bad enough, we can and WILL walk away to cool off. more than likely however, it will be Him who walks away and comes back to deal with it when He's not angry. it's a promise we've made to each other and we intend to keep that promise. just as we've promised never to go to bed angry. i don't think that just because you're submissive means you can't get up and go for a drive to cool off if the argument is that bad. maybe not in your situation.....but for me, depending on the situation, it would probably be encouraged to give us both that time to think and cool off.....wow this thread has really really gotten off topic....but the discussion is a good one

Fortunately, as much as we both are passionate and highly emotional people, we rarely get upset to the point where he considers it necessary for time out...these days it is me who is more likely to need the time out as he is very good at controlling his anger before it begins. I have on a couple of occasions left to walk it off, but I won't be doing that again as it isn't worth the grief....we resolve it in the moment and move on otherwise it tends to fester for us and prolong the pain and that is not a good thing to endure.

Catalina

 

[lil_slave_rose]

Fortunately, as much as we both are passionate and highly emotional people, we rarely get upset to the point where he considers it necessary for time out. I have on a couple of occasions left to walk it off, but I won't be doing that again as it isn't worth the grief....we resolve it in the moment and move on otherwise it tends to fester for us and prolong the pain and that is not a good thing to endure.

Catalina

oh i agree completely. if it can be worked out RIGHT THEN, then yes, it should be and shouldn't be left for later. i hate being walked away from..that's one of those things that can defiantly make me act out and probably get me into alot of trouble..lol so, for the most part, our problems, disagreements are worked out as soon as they arise, however sometimes we are both just too tired to argue and so we resolve as much as we can and then save the rest for the morning....if that makes sense. *shrugs* so far we've not had many, though i know it will change when we are face to face 24/7, no doubt about that. i do hope that in those times we can handle it the way you've described......

 

[BiBunny]

Also in the D/s style, it is not an option as a sub to just get up and go from a drive to cool off, or suggest they stick it where the sun don't shine and hope to resolve matters better later.
Catalina

Hehe, maybe for you it's not.

No, seriously, I try to be good, but B. can be the most infuriating man alive when he puts his mind to it. (Yet another reason I don't think I could live with him 24/7, at least not yet.) I've told him to stick it where the sun don't shine on more than one occasion. I may be in for it later, but he knows that I'm usually very mild-mannered, so when I start talking like that to him, he has done something to really upset me, LOL. A lot of times it ends with him saying something like, "I really don't like the way you spoke to me, but I've thought about it, and you're right. I WAS being an asshole."

There's something so cute about a Domly type who can admit when he's an idiot.

 

[JMohegan]

I have a question. Do you think the "lows" of a 24/7 D/s relationship are worse or better than a 24/7 vanilla relationship?

To a great extent, posts about the not-so-good days in a 24/7 D/s relationship could be said about marriage generally. So I'm curious - is that we're really talking about? The realities of living with someone 24/7? How does D/s affect the lows and the highs?

D/s affects the lows for a partner with me as follows.

If she feels tired, frustrated, upset, etc., she has only one mode of recourse that I find acceptable within the parameters of the relationship. Specifically, to explain her feelings to me in a respectful way. In response, I may (or may not) adjust my behavior and expectations accordingly.

In contrast, I assume that a mate in a non-D/s relationship would have the option to complain, criticize, strenuously object, demand compromise, refuse compliance, head out the door without the partner's permission, etc., etc., etc. - without violating the agreed upon terms of the relationship.

As for the highs in my relationships, it makes sense to me that D/s itself makes them higher since our individual needs are specifically fulfilled in a relationship of this flavor.

As for the question of whether the lows of D/s vs. non-D/s relationships in general are better or worse, it seems to me that's impossible to say.

 

[intothewoods]

Also, while being dominant isn't an act, it is a kind of focus that I don't have constantly.[/B] To live with me is to see the warty underbelly and all that crap. You don't get that when the main means of communication is verbal.

I completely get this. In general, I have a tough time switching gears, and I can imagine it will also be tough living with a Dominant. Plus, I can be a real cranky bitch. Hm. Maybe I'm not the one who should be concerned.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hehe, maybe for you it's not.

No, seriously, I try to be good, but B. can be the most infuriating man alive when he puts his mind to it. (Yet another reason I don't think I could live with him 24/7, at least not yet.) I've told him to stick it where the sun don't shine on more than one occasion. I may be in for it later, but he knows that I'm usually very mild-mannered, so when I start talking like that to him, he has done something to really upset me, LOL. A lot of times it ends with him saying something like, "I really don't like the way you spoke to me, but I've thought about it, and you're right. I WAS being an asshole."

There's something so cute about a Domly type who can admit when he's an idiot.

LOL, no comment. One thing I did think of while cooking when I am in a no cooking mood was that when we were LD, though there were at times misunderstandings and upsets, I rarely had moments of anger, nor did he, simply I think because it is more difficult when you are apart and wishing you were together. That longing thing tended to make me implode more than explode or want to explode...living in the same house though, many factors combine to build up tension, and the longing is no longer an issue as you are together so deeper hurt and anger can become more of an issue....at least IMO in this hurried moment.

Catalina

 

[intothewoods]

Also in the D/s style, it is not an option as a sub to just get up and go from a drive to cool off, or suggest they stick it where the sun don't shine and hope to resolve matters better later. IME, vanilla marriage meant you still needed to talk and work things out, but there were far fewer variables involved, far less formality involved, and far less pressure overall.

Catalina

I can see where the pressure of not being able to vent would be tough. I have a friend who I only recently found out is a sub. Now that I know, it's like, ohhhh, well, that changes everything! She did her best to explain the situation without revealing too much, but if you aren't familiar with D/s, the situation sounds more dire than it is. If that makes any sense...

 

[intothewoods]

In contrast, I assume that a mate in a non-D/s relationship would have the option to complain, criticize, strenuously object, demand compromise, refuse compliance, head out the door without the partner's permission, etc., etc., etc. - without violating the agreed upon terms of the relationship.

Um, yes and no, I think. I mean, if you routinely behave in the way you describe, it's not that great for the marriage. I guess it depends on those "agreed upon terms."

Of course, different strokes for different folks. I think in my past relationships, I've always been looking for my equal. I mean, of course I am, right? I'm a feminist. I deserve respect. Of course I wouldn't want a man to be in control? Except, oops, I really do. So, I've repeatedly entered into relationships in which the "agreed upon terms" are one thing, and yet my nature seems to be pushing and pulling in a different direction.

 

[JMohegan]

Um, yes and no, I think. I mean, if you routinely behave in the way you describe, it's not that great for the marriage. I guess it depends on those "agreed upon terms."

Of course, different strokes for different folks. I think in my past relationships, I've always been looking for my equal. I mean, of course I am, right? I'm a feminist. I deserve respect. Of course I wouldn't want a man to be in control? Except, oops, I really do. So, I've repeatedly entered into relationships in which the "agreed upon terms" are one thing, and yet my nature seems to be pushing and pulling in a different direction.

I agree with you that the way that the low points are routinely handled is critical to the success of any relationship.

Speaking about D/s rather than non, my personal opinion is that both submission and Dominance are ultimately defined in the moments of disconnect - meaning, those times when the preferences, will, and desires of the parties are in conflict with one another.

In those moments, her job is to defer to my authority and will, and to trust that I will treat her fairly overall & meet her needs over the course of the relationship. My job is to do just that.

As for your nature "pushing and pulling you in a different direction" from an egalitarian exchange, I understand. And I also understand your concern about respect.

However, as counterintuitive as it may initially seem, the act of submitting actually demonstrates self-respect because it respects the very nature to which you have made reference.

Further, I'll note that I have always had enormous respect for my partners. Otherwise, I would not have bothered to spend time with them! And at no point has my respect been greater than in those moments of disconnect when a woman defers to my authority. The self control and commitment required to do so is sometimes extraordinary. And ultimately, it ends up getting her what she wants - a sustained and successful relationship with a relaxed, happy, satisfied, and demonstrably appreciative me.

 

[FluteMaster]

I agree with you that the way that the low points are routinely handled is critical to the success of any relationship.

Speaking about D/s rather than non, my personal opinion is that both submission and Dominance are ultimately defined in the moments of disconnect - meaning, those times when the preferences, will, and desires of the parties are in conflict with one another.

In those moments, her job is to defer to my authority and will, and to trust that I will treat her fairly overall & meet her needs over the course of the relationship. My job is to do just that.

As for your nature "pushing and pulling you in a different direction" from an egalitarian exchange, I understand. And I also understand your concern about respect.

However, as counterintuitive as it may initially seem, the act of submitting actually demonstrates self-respect because it respects the very nature to which you have made reference.

Further, I'll note that I have always had enormous respect for my partners. Otherwise, I would not have bothered to spend time with them! And at no point has my respect been greater than in those moments of disconnect when a woman defers to my authority. The self control and commitment required to do so is sometimes extraordinary. And ultimately, it ends up getting her what she wants - a sustained and successful relationship with a relaxed, happy, satisfied, and demonstrably appreciative me.

I agree with you entirely here, especially the different roles between D and s and the benefits for both parties.

It sounds counter intuitive, what you describe, but it works with the right people.

 

[Netzach]

In contrast, I assume that a mate in a non-D/s relationship would have the option to complain, criticize, strenuously object, demand compromise, refuse compliance, head out the door without the partner's permission, etc., etc., etc. - without violating the agreed upon terms of the relationship.

Ha!

How about when someone can do all this because I know in 45 minutes he's going to come back and say "you were right. Let's do it your way." Almost without fail.

Now if I could only learn to cool my jets till then instead of getting really mad and fighting, it would go even better.

The net result is, however that it IS up to me. It's so funny watching someone give up control when they really don't want to and know they should. If this was a verbally-based reality I probably would not have put up with my husband for 5 minutes.

 

[intothewoods]

Interesting post, JMohegan. Especially this:

Speaking about D/s rather than non, my personal opinion is that both submission and Dominance are ultimately defined in the moments of disconnect - meaning, those times when the preferences, will, and desires of the parties are in conflict with one another.

As to this:

However, as counterintuitive as it may initially seem, the act of submitting actually demonstrates self-respect because it respects the very nature to which you have made reference.

I do understand that now, but I didn't always.

 

[Marquis]

First off, I want to thank JMo and and the Netz not only for their usual insight and literacy, but for including my name in their posts. If it wasn't for my vanity search, there's a good chance I would've missed this absolute gem of a thread.

There are a lot of interesting things brought up in this thread, I'll try to respond to them in the order I remember them appearing.

1. Do I require a connection?

Yeah, I think there pretty much has to be SOME kind of connection. I mean, if you're dominating someone, shouldn't that provide and necessitate a connection?

The prima facie question being asked here seems fairly circular, so it seems that the logical extension is to begin talking about how love effects domination, right?

I think JMo hit this one pretty much on the head, not really sure what else I can add. Dominating a person is hard work. The more of a connection you have, the more rewarding that work is going to be, it's really that simple.

2. Is submission a gift?

Well, it is, of course, all about how you want to interpret this. I think there may exist an extremely narrow definition of the word gift that would allow me to possibly agree with this statement, with plenty of caveats.

However, the way this phrase is used generally in our community and specifically in this thread, no, I do not agree with at all.

In my experience there seems to be a very limited number of situations where you'll hear exhortations of the "giftness" of submission:

a) From an inexperienced dom or sub who is still, to some degree, having a hard time with the idea of D/s and desperately looking for a framework that makes it "ok"

b) From a manipulative or dishonest dom or sub, who should know better but panders to the understanding of their hopeful partner

c) After a really, and I mean a REALLY good blowjob

I think this is something that most who are open-minded will come to understand better with experience.

As a dom or a sub, I think one day you just kind of come to the conclusion that this idea that subs are these pathetic little creatures that must be protected and provided for by the dom is just not that hot.

Such an opinion belongs squarely in that realm of paradox where your ability to degrade someone is directly proportionally to how much respect you have for them.

3. Is online/LDR different from realtime?

Yes, super different. But we're all in agreement on that, right?

4. Are they equivalent?

No, they are not equivalent.

There seems to be no amount of analogies, metaphors or first hand accounts that will allow people to understand this. It seems to be something remarkably, incredibly self evident; a blind spot that no mirror seems to be capable of granting perception.

Just come back when you get that experience and tell us if you feel the same way.

 

[lil_slave_rose]

As a dom or a sub, I think one day you just kind of come to the conclusion that this idea that subs are these pathetic little creatures that must be

protected and provided for by the dom is just not that hot.

i am not sure where anyone has said that subs are 'pathetic little creatures who must be protected' quite the cotrary actually. just because i think my submission is a 'gift' does not mean i am weak and need to be taken care or my every whim catered to ..that's just not how it is....and if someone said that then i agree with you that it's just not that 'hot' of an idea....

3. Is online/LDR different from realtime?

Yes, super different. But we're all in agreement on that, right?

yes, no one was disputing this fact....

4. Are they equivalent?

No, they are not equivalent.

There seems to be no amount of analogies, metaphors or first hand accounts that will allow people to understand this. It seems to be something remarkably, incredibly self evident; a blind spot that no mirror seems to be capable of granting perception.

Just come back when you get that experience and tell us if you feel the same way.

again, not sure where anyone said the situations were 'equivalent' just simply different, but no less valid than the other......

 

[Netzach]

As a dom or a sub, I think one day you just kind of come to the conclusion that this idea that subs are these pathetic little creatures that must be protected and provided for by the dom is just not that hot.

Such an opinion belongs squarely in that realm of paradox where your ability to degrade someone is directly proportionally to how much respect you have for them.

That's an interesting way of putting it. I never found that kind of compulsory respect to be respect, though.

When I was bottoming it made me palpably, tangibly angry. "I'm not fucking made of glass, dude."

I found I am much more able to degrade someone I expect to be able to take it, IE. someone who's made of tougher stuff.

 

[Marquis]

That's an interesting way of putting it. I never found that kind of compulsory respect to be respect, though.

When I was bottoming it made me palpably, tangibly angry. "I'm not fucking made of glass, dude."

I found I am much more able to degrade someone I expect to be able to take it, IE. someone who's made of tougher stuff.

My point exactly.

A sub who can handle all the humiliation I can dig out without needing an inordinate amount of aftercare gets tons of respect from me.

I'm not talking about compulsory respect, I'm talking about the fact that I can live with a girl who is incapable in a few ways and requires some help.... provided she is superior to me in other ways and can offer me help in those.

Am I being clearer?

 

[Netzach]

My point exactly.

A sub who can handle all the humiliation I can dig out without needing an inordinate amount of aftercare gets tons of respect from me.

I'm not talking about compulsory respect, I'm talking about the fact that I can live with a girl who is incapable in a few ways and requires some help.... provided she is superior to me in other ways and can offer me help in those.

Am I being clearer?

Useful clarification, indeed.

 

[Marquis]

Hey slave_rose, sorry I didn't reply to your post earlier. I saw that I was going to need to think about my reply and I didn't want to rush it.

i am not sure where anyone has said that subs are 'pathetic little creatures who must be protected' quite the cotrary actually. just because i think my submission is a 'gift' does not mean i am weak and need to be taken care or my every whim catered to ..that's just not how it is....and if someone said that then i agree with you that it's just not that 'hot' of an idea....

Personally, I find the whole "submission as gift" idea to be extremely patronizing to the submissive. Then again, you're talking to a guy who thinks chauvinism and chivalry are euphemisms.

Let's take a look at a few examples from this thread:

However - there are those on the scene, and I am not referring to those who have posted to date, who sadly need to be reminded that they are dealing with flesh and blood. I happen to believe that a submissive IS more vulnerable emotionally than a dominant. I happen to believe that a submissive IS more prey to finding themselves in an emotionally ebusive relationship than a dominant.

1) I believe that D/s has, within it dynamics, greater potential to screw up people's minds than vanilla relationships. I'll argue why if you wish, but that is my belief.

2) potential is greater for Subs than for Doms (note greater - not unique)

3) THere are those (not subs), who play with subs and break them through ignorance etc.

4) They are the ones who need to learn that the submission is a gift, not a right.

How can you not find this idea that submissives are inherently vulnerable demeaning?

I certainly find the idea that dominants are any less vulnerable to be, as Netzach pointed out, objectifying.

I've had my heart crushed by subs on many, many occasions. I've been led into making some bad decisions by subs and there have been subs who have made me want to hang up my floggers for good.

I don't look at subs as any more helpless than doms at protecting their interests, they just have a different way of going about it.

Look, I have NO issue with using any of these ideas in play, at all. The way I work is not for everyone, but I am infinitely more comfortable in a relationship setting when we have FIRST established that we are both comfortable in who we are as individuals and what we have to offer the other. Once the mutual respect is established, then I don't mind becoming her god or having her as my slave. That way we can both spend time being human beings when we don't have the energy or inclination to be a character.

In fact, you may find that the more comfortable you become as a human being, the more you may begin to resemble the character you aspire to be. In a full, well-rounded and honest way, with a foundation that won't crack at the first introduction of real-world pressure.

I think the ideas are an interesting reflection on the BDSM dating world. While a submissive is not inherently a vulnerable thing, an 18 year old girl is pretty fucking vulnerable, particularly in relation to the 40+ year old man who is trying to convince her how much he values her "gift of submission".

again, not sure where anyone said the situations were 'equivalent' just simply different, but no less valid than the other......

Click me

Saying one is more or less valid is a little silly because that doesn't have any meaning. What seems to be the point of contention here is whether they can be discussed as parallels and I really do not think they can be, at all.

Someone who is experienced in real life BDSM might be terrible at maintaining a satisfying online experience, and someone with lots of online experience might be terrible at keeping a real life relationship together.

It's like an avid Counterstrike fan telling a SWAT officer that their is no difference in the "validity" of their experience. This may be somewhat true, as long as you recognize that you're probably better off with the first guy at your Lan party and the second guy if you've been taken hostage.

However, if the topic of discussion is a comparison on the advantages/disadvantages of the AK-47 vs. the M-16, I'd appreciate it if the Counterstrike player was humble enough to mention that his opinion is derived from an albeit very realistic video game.

No one is trying to say that the feelings you may have during an online or long distance relationship aren't real. I'm sure for many people, the feelings they share with their online lovers might come to be more real than what they feel for lovers that they live with. That's not the point.

We're not talking about how excited you get when Master's name lights up on your buddylist. We're talking about the challenges of a relationship, and the medium in which that relationship is conducted makes a TREMENDOUS and MEANINGFUL difference.

 

[FluteMaster]

Originally Posted by FluteMaster

However - there are those on the scene, and I am not referring to those who have posted to date, who sadly need to be reminded that they are dealing with flesh and blood. I happen to believe that a submissive IS more vulnerable emotionally than a dominant. I happen to believe that a submissive IS more prey to finding themselves in an emotionally ebusive relationship than a dominant.


Originally Posted by FluteMaster

1) I believe that D/s has, within it dynamics, greater potential to screw up people's minds than vanilla relationships. I'll argue why if you wish, but that is my belief.

2) potential is greater for Subs than for Doms (note greater - not unique)

3) THere are those (not subs), who play with subs and break them through ignorance etc.

4) They are the ones who need to learn that the submission is a gift, not a right.

How can you not find this idea that submissives are inherently vulnerable demeaning?

Sorry Maquis - that is a complete misreading of what I have written. If you are going to quote me, then at least read it first.

I certainly find the idea that dominants are any less vulnerable to be, as Netzach pointed out, objectifying.

Why objectifying? I am merely arguing about the relative vulnerabilities of populations, not individual members.

I've had my heart crushed by subs on many, many occasions. I've been led into making some bad decisions by subs and there have been subs who have made me want to hang up my floggers for good.

I don't look at subs as any more helpless than doms at protecting their interests, they just have a different way of going about it.

Well, I haven't said Doms are invulnerable,, but I will still argue that subs have a greater potential to vulnerability.

 

[Marquis]

Sorry Marquis - that is a complete misreading of what I have written. If you are going to quote me, then at least read it first.

It appears that you're referring to this statement:

How can you not find this idea that submissives are inherently vulnerable demeaning?

And yet, just a few sentences later you say:

Why objectifying? I am merely arguing about the relative vulnerabilities of populations, not individual members.

and

Well, I haven't said Doms are invulnerable,, but I will still argue that subs have a greater potential to vulnerability.

I suppose having "a greater potential to vulnerability" is something altogether different from being "inherently vulnerable".

So, in order to use your terms, I do NOT believe "that subs have a greater potential to vulnerability." The fact that you DO believe this makes me wonder whether or not YOU have a greater than average potential to vulnerability.

 

[Netzach]

It appears that you're referring to this statement:



And yet, just a few sentences later you say:



and




I suppose having "a greater potential to vulnerability" is something altogether different from being "inherently vulnerable".

So, in order to use your terms, I do NOT believe "that subs have a greater potential to vulnerability." The fact that you DO believe this makes me wonder whether or not YOU have a greater than average potential to vulnerability.

I don't understand how we got to "vulnerability." Submission to a mere mortal is a risky endeavor. Like skydiving, battle, driving fast and gambling.

Yet I've never heard "increased vulnerability" applied to skydivers, marines, stock car drivers or high rollers. Yeah, you are liable to get hurt and burnt. So if anything encouraging people in this position to use their BRAINS and stay rational would be safety advice, not to crank on the romantic feelies full on.

But here's the bottom line.

Is a guy more likely to get in a girl's panties when talking about how special rare and amazing she is, or when he's telling her to be smart and calling her out on not being smart?

 

[intothewoods]

I think we all agree that the notion that by just "being" a sub you are "rare and amazing" is hogwash.

My own experience has been that since admitting to myself that I am a submissive, I've had a couple of low points that were more low than anything I've ever experienced after the ending of a vanilla relationship. For me, allowing that side of myself to be exposed made me, well, more vulnerable than I ever had been. When you are the sub, you give up the control and the power in the relationship - and to me, that's pretty scary. Whereas the Dominant taps into his or her strength, no? Then again, I can also see how for someone who has always identified as a sensitive individual, it would be particularly scary to admit to a sadistic streak.

In any case, I'm citing what I've felt, but for all I know, it's just the newness of this for me. Or other stresses going on in my life: the stakes are certainly higher at the moment. Or I'm just very needy and high-maintenance. I can cop to that. However, my experience that the lows of submission are so much lower than the lows in a vanilla situation makes FM's comments really resonate with me.

 

[the captians wench]

Okay, I agree with what Marquis said about the online vs outside expeirence.

I've been serving Jounar mostly via the net for nearly two years. In that time I've also been gaining outside experience. The two are completely different, and where at one point i would have compaired them side by side now I don't feel that's fair to either situation.

I love Jounar, that's the power he holds over me really, and so he doesn't need to be present for me to do what he tells me to do. I've done lots of things to myself because he got a kick out of it and no other reason. I've also had many of those same things done to me by some one else. Would I say that having some one else do them to me is better? Not really, just different.

I'll admit there are some things that are very different when some one else is doing them. Self flogging lacks the proper angle to get full forse from it.

I think the problem here is that when we talk about online different people are getting different images. When some one says "Oooh you're in an online relationship" I tend to think "I'm not fucking rping this is a real situation not fantasy land", and I have defended myself in that respect so many times that I have to restrain myself and say "hey wait maybe they're not just assuming that I'm rping here" and read the rest of the comments.

I'm a needy little thing. I fully admit that, and I admit that I need a lot of validation. But I just don't seek validation in regards to "is my relationship real" anymore. I know what I feel, what we have, the connection we have, the power he holds, is real, and fuck anyone who doesn't think so. Why should they matter anyway? Why the fuck should they care?

But all the chatting and self torture in the world won't satisfy a craving for being tied up and beaten until I grow so weak that I fall to the floor. And no amount of smiles would help me recover from something like that. Some things you have to have contact with the flesh to really understand.

And I don't think any one would argue that reading, and typing about flogging some one is not the same as doing it. You can't practice your aim at the computer, well at least not when it comes to hiting a real live person with an implement designed to hurt like fuck.

And after spending a week away from my playmate and then having a playdate, I can tell you I'll retract my comment that reading type or even hearing commands on the phone is the same as some one actually there with you. Fucking hell is it a different!