Extreme bruising - a Dom's concern?

[njlauren]

He's not an asshole IMHO. You haven't played for a long time...your body will therefore react differently and likely bruise easier. This is in part because you have lost the resistence you built up during the time you engaged more regularly, and also because you are 12 years older now so it is natural for your body to react differently.

Add to that we are all different, and our bodies all react differently. Did he stop when you red safeworded? If so, how is it his fault? The bruising could also be a result of your own chemistry at the moment. If you are lacking particular minerals, you are likely to bruise more easily and more visibly. Also there are many medications which can make bruising very easy...if you are taking any of them, it could explain why you bruised more than you have before.

Personally, I can bruise from a light knock against furniture, and yet get a heavy flogging and come out with nothing. Our bodies are strange things sometimes. And don't forget, when you engage consensually in such activities, you have to be prepared to carry at least 50% of the responsibility for outcomes, not load it all on the other person as if they did not have your consent and co-operation.

Catalina

I agree that the marks alone don't make this questionable (don't have enough information nor do we know what the OP's body is like), but his reaction to what happened raises red flags to me, someone who is the least bit ethical as a dominant IMO would be concerned if someone had issues afterwords, at least to show caring enough to listen. Saying 'it is a badge of honor' to me is the sign that someone is way full of themselves and doesn't care, if he said "I tried to keep it as light as a could and make it interesting and I am afraid your body wasn't as resilient as I thought", I could accept that, but those words strongly imply either he didn't care or worse, that he did it deliberately and blew through her concerns. The bruising bothers me less then the attitude, it is one I have seen more then a few times in the BD/SM world and it is not a good thing IME.

 

[njlauren]

Well if you knew they intended to do that, yes, it is still your fault in part, if not wholly. The OP knew what the activity was going to include, had safewords, was not forced...IOW, did not say they did not agree to any spanking or paddling, quite the opposite, they participated. If the concern about bruising was that great, why not elect for something which holds no risk of bruising when playing with someone new? To cry foul after the fact sounds too much like the antics in Shades of Grey, not the behaviour of a pyl with extensive prior experience.


Catalina

If someone peed on her face when the hypothetical sub specifically said watersports was a limit, it is 100% the dominants fault for not abiding by that limit. We are not talking a TPE where a dominant has the right to do as they wish here. If I specifically say no to something before play, make it a limit, then it is 100% on the dominant for doing it, safeword or no safeword, limits are part of the negotiation that goes into people doing scenes. It is easy to say the hypothetical sub could always safeword, but as has been pointed out many times when a sub is in sub space safewords are not enough, reaction times aren't there and a dominant could simply, for example, have the sub tied up and quickly pee on them before they even have time to safe word. And it isn't just about likes, I am claustrophobic and if I told a dominant where my limits are, and they tied me up then put a restrictive hood on my head before I realized what was going on, it could cause serious harm, it is why limits are important part of the negotiation.

In the OP's example I don't think the issue was the bruising, that could happen by accident, we all agree, but his attitude afterwords, the lack of concern, tells me this is a lot more then an accident, that either he doesn't give a crap about the consequences of what he did or worse, blew through her limits deliberately. I have been around a ton of dominants, including people who are quite serious lifestyle D/s people, and all of them in their own way owned up to their responsibility and if a sub had trouble later, owned or simply a play bottom, at the very least they would show concern for what the sub was feeling, and rightfully so. If the guy had accidentally bruised her severely and she was upset about it, where he failed 100% as a dominant was in being an uncaring, arrogant jerk, if all his response was "wear it as a badge of honor"..sounds to me like people who get a reputation, not a good one, around the community for being 'stupid dominants'.

 

[njlauren]

I actually think his response was fairly standard for a PYL who is into pain play....and yes, that is what these activities are, and obviously was understood by the pyl given they mentioned why they didn't want visible bruising. If not, perhaps they should get to know the person they intend playing with more before placing themselves in their hands...and once again, this comes back to responsibility. If it were me and the PYL began apologising profusely and feeling guilty, you can be guaranteed they would not be hearing from me again. I find myself wondering how anyone at the class reunion and picnic was at risk of seeing the bruises given they are on the butt? Normally you would not have your butt out at a class reunion I wouldn't think.

I actually find it offensive to bring up a comparison to bruising on abused women in the emergency department. Those women have not had the opportunity to agree or disagree to their beating, nor do they have safewords they can use and have honoured. To compare the two is not only demeaning to those women, but also comes off as someone maybe not as experienced as they say, or playing in deeper water than they can handle.

Catalina

While I think the comparison with women in an emergency room being beaten or with a rape victim is a bit over the top, because there is no consensuality there at all, there still is an analogy there, one I am going to try and use very carefully..


It wasn't all that many years ago that women in a marriage could be beaten up by their husband, or more importantly raped, and the basic legal theory on that was it was okay, because she was married to the guy, and it was only about 40 years ago that legally they could charge a husband with rape if her forced her to have sex, and the basic argument there was that a woman when she got married consented basically to give the man sex whenever and however he wanted it, and before that, a husband beating a wife was often treated as 'part of marriage'..... and obviously, there is no consensuality in these examples but at one time people thought there was, hence using it as an illustration.

And the OP's incident does raise a valid question, about just what is someone consenting to, where does that consent begin and end? Saying that if a dominant does something and the sub didn't like it/want it is the fault of the submissive is basically saying that when you consent to play, that basically you are consenting to anything that goes on and that is absolutely ridiculous. I am leaving D/s relationships out of this, TPE, even though I have my own thoughts on those, I am talking about play, where it is negotiated. If I consent to play with someone, that consent is based on what we have negotiated (and again, I am talking the kind of play the OP did), which includes my limits and boundaries, and in going ahead and playing with me the dominant agrees to those limits as well. If he/she blows through my limits, it is the equivalent of blowing through a safe word, there is no difference, because we negotiated that point, he/she knew it, and went ahead anyway....and the fault at that point is on them. If something happens accidentally that was over a limit, I would expect them to be mindful of that and as part of aftercare be cognizant it could cause the sub harm. Arguing the sub 'consented to play' is not the same thing as 'consenting to take anything the dominant gives you', unless it was TPE D/s with no limits which this wasn't.

No, I wouldn't expect a dominant to blow it off nor would I give them a pass under the guise "I was responsible for it', they are responsible, because they still have the ultimate control, safeword or no safe word. That person also violated a major part of any of this, truth, IMO, because even assuming the bruising was accidental, if a sub has problems with it afterwords, then the dominant has a responsibility there as part of that trust. You said something interesting, you said you wouldn't play with a dominant again who apologized or showed care, but that is you, that is the way you play, you assume the dominant has total control and has the right to do as he/she wished because you consented to play, but your style of play is very, very different then the OP's and what is generally assumed to be consensual, negotiated play, you aren't looking at it through the eyes of the OP or how a lot of people do play. In effect you are saying if you consent to play, whatever the dominant does, limits or nor limits, is okay, and that isn't con sensuality at all.

In vanilla sex, if two people are going to have sex, they agree to have sex, meet, but then one of the people gets cold feet and says no when they are nude and in bed, but the other person still has sex with them, it is rape, because the person raped said no, and if the perp argued she had consented to it because the victim went home with them, got into bed with them, and that was consent for what went on, they would lose.

Again, I am not saying what happened to the OP is the same as my scenario above in scope, but what it highlights is that consensuality is based on saying yes to something, agreeing to it, and if what goes on beyond the bounds of that agreement, the consensuality has been violated. The dominant in question violated that limit that had been agreed upon before they played. If it was deliberate, then he was a first class asshole. If it was simply he had no way of knowing she would bruise like that, then he is guilty as charged because he made light of it and in effect violated consensuality a second time, for making light of the fact that accidentally or deliberately the limits were blown through.

 

[JMohegan]

FTW, this. Nice catch on the pertinent detail that this went down via text.

I don't think of texting as the means for serious communication either, good point. I would think that if someone had a serious issue with something the other night they'd want to have a voice inflected actual discussion about it and that if they were texting me it was quick by the way kind of flirting.

I now can totally officially see myself doing this.

Although I'm sure I'd probably ask what they meant by "I hope you're not into serious bruising" because that would confuse me if I'd been trying not to go there. The whole thing would kind of blindside me as a text.

BUT
I still think that part of your duty if you want power, is to accept responsibility for certain things, including "unfortunate circumstances unforseen."

I have kind of a military feeling about the question. The buck has to stop somewhere, doesn't it and it stops with me the person holding the stick. DEFINITELY bottoms tend to do way too little on their end about being an adult, but I do think that even if some external circumstance isn't entirely my fault, it should be thought about by me, put into my contingencies when I make a decision.

Maybe it's just the price of being female that I think demurring would be no skin of this dude's unbruised ass - you're raised to be quick with an apology for the sake of social cohesion, an apology is more of a reflex than a question of backing down from your position.

It's very hard to know when to stop on a yellow or go on a yellow, which is why I hate using that "traffic light" thing, and prefer a stop word only. I don't think "this is getting challenging" is something that should be stated some confusing way.

I agree with all of this completely.

And by the way, this is one of the reasons I don't play casually. Because I do accept a buck-stops-here level of responsibility as the guy holding the stick, but don't trust casual partners to give me the feedback I need. Not in the moment, and not in the aftermath.

There are too many females in this world who communicate with vague hints, ambiguous references, waffling, etc., and too many s-types who believe that D = guy who just walked out of their fantasies and will be able to expertly read their bodies as well as their sighs, moans, gasps, and trembles the first time they meet.

I can't speak to the rest of this thread, but if you had a bad feeling please trust it. Even if he is not a bad guy, it just sounds like it is probably a bad fit.

Yes.

Get over the vindictive urge to shout "He's an asshole!" to the world at large. Chalk it up to experience and move on.

 

[njlauren]

Really?!! Oh yeah, that's right, the pyl holds all the power and the PYL is just there to give them what they want and how they want, yanno, do as they're told. I keep forgetting that.

Catalina

What you are leaving out is this isn't a TPE, this isn't a lifestyle relationship, this was a negotiated scene with people who didn't know each other and the dominant, for whatever reasons, accidental or deliberate, blew through the limits. The bruises may not be the dominants fault per se, he might have had no control over that (don't know for certain), but he most certainly has control over his role and in acknowledging that he went beyond those bounds. Assuming that a dominant or top has all the power or has no obligation to the sub in a negotiated scene is way, way off the mark IMO. Yes, she consented to the scene, but she consented to a scene with defined limits and it went beyond them, period.

 

[MsQuote]

I agree that the marks alone don't make this questionable (don't have enough information nor do we know what the OP's body is like), but his reaction to what happened raises red flags to me, someone who is the least bit ethical as a dominant IMO would be concerned if someone had issues afterwords, at least to show caring enough to listen. Saying 'it is a badge of honor' to me is the sign that someone is way full of themselves and doesn't care, if he said "I tried to keep it as light as a could and make it interesting and I am afraid your body wasn't as resilient as I thought", I could accept that, but those words strongly imply either he didn't care or worse, that he did it deliberately and blew through her concerns. The bruising bothers me less then the attitude, it is one I have seen more then a few times in the BD/SM world and it is not a good thing IME.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you for putting it so well.

 

[njlauren]

A general question;
Do we see any difference between someone taking responsibility for something, and it being their fault?

Most people seem to be taking the attitude that the bruising wasn't the issue, but that his lack of ownership was. If he had responded back to her problems with the bruises with sympathy or understanding, that would be taking responsibility, and that is what he is being ripped for. He could be at fault if he deliberately hit in her a way likely to cause bruises on anyone rather then accidentally, but we don't know that.

 

[Netzach]

There's an aspect of putting this kind of "things go wrong" on BOTH sets of shoulders that has value, though. It shows that communication and safewords have their limits of application - that an agreement and a safeword does NOT keep you magically safe from undesired result.

OP, you now know your ass is not where your tolerances are, it's gonna bruise while you're still having fun. You also might want to think about text vs. voice in important communications. Likely this guy was a moderate douche, also.

 

[MsQuote]

I can't speak to the rest of this thread, but if you had a bad feeling please trust it. Even if he is not a bad guy, it just sounds like it is probably a bad fit.

Best wishes to you.

A bad fit is when you know ahead of time that your desires and expectations are not aligned and/or compatible.

A bad guy (person) is someone who doesn't live up to his/her stated character and expectations and shows no remorse.

 

[MsQuote]

You also might want to think about text vs. voice in important communications. Likely this guy was a moderate douche, also.

I would have called by phone except he was still at work. We both expected and agreed that we could leave brief messages, if necessary, but not expect a reply or discussion until both of us were out of the office.

 

[njlauren]

There's an aspect of putting this kind of "things go wrong" on BOTH sets of shoulders that has value, though. It shows that communication and safewords have their limits of application - that an agreement and a safeword does NOT keep you magically safe from undesired result.

OP, you now know your ass is not where your tolerances are, it's gonna bruise while you're still having fun. You also might want to think about text vs. voice in important communications. Likely this guy was a moderate douche, also.

No it doesn't, which unless suddenly the BD/SM gods have ordained it not to be needed, there is the concept of aftercare, least there used to be. You can do a similar scene with someone 10 times and it goes great, do the same thing the 11th time and the sub, for whatever reason, has a bad reaction, physically or emotionally. You do something as a dominant hundreds of times and it has always worked great, work with someone else who claims they can handle it, and they are a basket case.......That was my biggest concern with the dom in question, it sounds like this potentially could be a regular relationship, the sub in question has issues or whatever, and you make light of it? I realize texting doesn't have the weight speaking or being in person, but it sounds like the OP told him why she was concerned/upset, which just wasn't about the reunion but fears going forward, and quite honestly, that kind of behavior for anyone you are thinking of seeing again would be troubling.

In the vanilla world, if you date someone, like them, but for example the other person had a bit too much to drink, they said something that could mean they have a steady BF/GF, and you later asked them about it and they blew it off, would you trust them to have another date? If you asked them if the amount of drinking they did that night was normal for them and they said something snarky back, would you go forward with them?

For the OP, unless you thought there was some kind of magic with this guy, I would keep fishing, unless you had reason to believe there was a misunderstanding when you told him you were upset. He prob isn't a dangerous dom or anything like that, but given how you feel about his response, that he hasn't tried to reach out to you apparently, it doesn't sound like it is special enough to try *shrug*. Find someone you play with that you can trust, be a lot more fun, which I suspect you already know. Feel free to PM me if you need something, don't know if you can or not......

 

[IrisAlthea]

A bad fit is when you know ahead of time that your desires and expectations are not aligned and/or compatible.

A bad guy (person) is someone who doesn't live up to his/her stated character and expectations and shows no remorse.

When people don't live up to your expectation it might be because they were deceiving you about what to expect. That would be a bad person.
It might also be that you misunderstood each other or that they themselves overestimated what they could deliver. Doesn't have to be about being a bad person.

I'm not here to defend him, because I don't know him, I wasn't there and if there is anything easier to misinterpret than a text conversation, it's a text conversation related by someone else.
What i do want to say is:

-Sure, don't meet him again, do think of him as an asshole if you like, but make sure that you learn something from the experience.

 

[JMohegan]

No it doesn't, which unless suddenly the BD/SM gods have ordained it not to be needed, there is the concept of aftercare, least there used to be. You can do a similar scene with someone 10 times and it goes great, do the same thing the 11th time and the sub, for whatever reason, has a bad reaction, physically or emotionally. You do something as a dominant hundreds of times and it has always worked great, work with someone else who claims they can handle it, and they are a basket case.......That was my biggest concern with the dom in question, it sounds like this potentially could be a regular relationship, the sub in question has issues or whatever, and you make light of it? I realize texting doesn't have the weight speaking or being in person, but it sounds like the OP told him why she was concerned/upset, which just wasn't about the reunion but fears going forward, and quite honestly, that kind of behavior for anyone you are thinking of seeing again would be troubling. .

Per the OP, she waited two days to express her concerns, and then did so via text when the guy was at work.

She keeps changing (expanding) her version of what was written in those texts.

There are at least two sides to every story, and we've heard a garbled version of one.

Netzach isn't making light of anything; she is keeping the thread in perspective.

 

[MsQuote]

When people don't live up to your expectation it might be because they were deceiving you about what to expect. That would be a bad person.
It might also be that you misunderstood each other or that they themselves overestimated what they could deliver. Doesn't have to be about being a bad person.

I'm not here to defend him, because I don't know him, I wasn't there and if there is anything easier to misinterpret than a text conversation, it's a text conversation related by someone else.
What i do want to say is:

-Sure, don't meet him again, do think of him as an asshole if you like, but make sure that you learn something from the experience.

Of course I learned from the experience. Doesn't mean I'm still not pissed, but I learned.

 

[subwannabe]

What got me was the fact that after bringing it up his response was that she should expect some bruising. Also, a "DOM" who is really nothing but an abuser doesn't allow safewords. To him a sub is a sub and that's all there is to it.

 

[Redkate]

Are you ever going to see him again?

If not, then who cares if hes an arsehole? It's an experience that went wrong from your perspective, and maybe it will help you negotiate future scenes better. Maybe not jump straight into a full scene in future. Start with introducing corporal as a small part of the play and if you cope well increase it. I know you're not a novice, but 12 years is a long time. If I hadn't skied for 12 years and jumped onto a double black run and I hurt myself, that'd kinda be my fault.

If you are going to see him again... Well you're probably asking for trouble.

 

[MsQuote]

Redkate and njlauren,

No, I'm not going to see this guy. (I've already stated his a few times in this thread.) There's nothing "special" about being treated like a doormat.

I know I feel as if I'm starting to beat a dead horse talking about my personal experience on this thread, although I wouldn't be opposed to talking about shared responsibility and ethics of play in general.

 

[submissive_fire]

Did you even read the OP's post?
It was her first session with him and she MADE IT A POINT that she wasn't into extreme pain and didn't want marks. She also had to safe word twice?
Yes, he's an asshole. One should take it slow at first. He should have toned it down enough not to warrant a second safe word for crying out loud!

Actually, what the OP said was that she didn't want any VISIBLE marks ... not that she didn't want any marks. No visible marks implies to me that she didn't want any marks that anyone could see and I'm sure if you asked around that would be the consensus of most everyone here.

I'm not saying the guy is not an ass .. I don't know him. Also, we really don't know the OP and don't know if she is giving the whole truth of their conversation and his reply. I'm sorry her ass is black and blue and she had a bad experience, but to just assume somebody is an ass based solely on one side of the story just doesn't do it for me.

 

[catalina_francisco]

What you are leaving out is this isn't a TPE, this isn't a lifestyle relationship, this was a negotiated scene with people who didn't know each other and the dominant, for whatever reasons, accidental or deliberate, blew through the limits. The bruises may not be the dominants fault per se, he might have had no control over that (don't know for certain), but he most certainly has control over his role and in acknowledging that he went beyond those bounds. Assuming that a dominant or top has all the power or has no obligation to the sub in a negotiated scene is way, way off the mark IMO. Yes, she consented to the scene, but she consented to a scene with defined limits and it went beyond them, period.

No, I am not taking this as a TPE situation (I know the difference and have always taken responsibiltiy for my decisions), but I am not surprised this is the best angle you can use to try and argue your point...sort of like you misquoting me in a previous post to make things seem different than I have said. Period.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Did you even read the OP's post?
It was her first session with him and she MADE IT A POINT that she wasn't into extreme pain and didn't want marks. She also had to safe word twice?
Yes, he's an asshole. One should take it slow at first. He should have toned it down enough not to warrant a second safe word for crying out loud!

Well, my reading of it was she said she had a high pain threshold, which generally means a person can take more pain than many, and also indicates they expect pain...and I didn't see she had huge issues during the session in terms of pain. Of course this could be wrong to assume, but as I and others have asked the OP how she felt during and it has never been answered, it tends to mean either the answer is self incriminating or it didn't bother her.

As to using a safe word twice....what do you see problematic about that? Safe words are there to be used, unfortunately, many feel it is bad or failure to use them and so let things go too far and try and suck it up...big mistake and doesn't help the PYL at all. She used the first safe word which in general means they need a break or to slow down or give feedback to the PYL. The red safeword usually means stop, and once again, we assume he did. So if these were followed to the generally understood meaning, I would say he listened and behaved well, or at least as expected.

Catalina

 

[MsQuote]

Well, my reading of it was she said she had a high pain threshold, which generally means a person can take more pain than many, and also indicates they expect pain...and I didn't see she had huge issues during the session in terms of pain. Of course this could be wrong to assume, but as I and others have asked the OP how she felt during and it has never been answered, it tends to mean either the answer is self incriminating or it didn't bother her.

As to using a safe word twice....what do you see problematic about that? Safe words are there to be used, unfortunately, many feel it is bad or failure to use them and so let things go too far and try and suck it up...big mistake and doesn't help the PYL at all. She used the first safe word which in general means they need a break or to slow down or give feedback to the PYL. The red safeword usually means stop, and once again, we assume he did. So if these were followed to the generally understood meaning, I would say he listened and behaved well, or at least as expected.

Catalina

I couldn't find anywhere in this thread where you or others directly asked me how I felt during play. For the record, I felt fine and safe. As for him "listening and behaving well"? Yes, at the time.
But if something didn't go well and wasn't discovered until two days afterward, then it makes it OK for him to not listen and behave well? I think not.

I can understand you being turned off by a Dom who would "apologize profusely" (as you stated in a previous post). I didn't say or imply that's what I expected. Since you're on this mission to insult and discredit me by picking apart every word and sentence I've uttered or believe I have implied on this thread, I would say that discussion would have merited a (my) pressing concern, and an experienced and ethical Dom and a Dom worthy of respect would have expressed some sort of concern, genuine (not profuse) apology, and would take a situation like this as a learning experience.

 

[imperitorts]

My opinion

I am a Dom for two women and it is all about trust and limits. You told him no visible bruising and had a good reason. He passed that limit for his pleasure. A good Dom should know when the marks will fade and should have metered appropriately.

Just my two cents.

 

[CutieMouse]

My opinion

I am a Dom for two women and it is all about trust and limits. You told him no visible bruising and had a good reason. He passed that limit for his pleasure. A good Dom should know when the marks will fade and should have metered appropriately.

Just my two cents.

If I read/am told "No visible marks", I presume it means that all necessary efforts will be made for "marks" to occur in places easily covered by clothing. Not a complete lack of marking (as *any* impact can/may result in marking). If the bruising was in an area covered by clothes, he obeyed the letter of the law.

The "badge of honor" meme is a bit flippant, but (IMO) "tell me you aren't into serious bruising", BY TEXT * after the fact* could be viewed as flippant, as well.

 

[imperitorts]

If I read/am told "No visible marks", I presume it means that all necessary efforts will be made for "marks" to occur in places easily covered by clothing. Not a complete lack of marking (as *any* impact can/may result in marking). If the bruising was in an area covered by clothes, he obeyed the letter of the law.

good point. If my pain slut said "No visible marks" I would probably think the same way. The other one, I would take it to mean "regardless of location". you need to know your subs. Since they are getting to know each other I would have most likely left no marks. Could have been a simple miscommunication.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I couldn't find anywhere in this thread where you or others directly asked me how I felt during play. For the record, I felt fine and safe. As for him "listening and behaving well"? Yes, at the time.
But if something didn't go well and wasn't discovered until two days afterward, then it makes it OK for him to not listen and behave well? I think not.

For reference, it was here. Thanks for answering. So you think that someone can act in hindsight, as in you didn't feel anything went wrong at the time, but 2 days later you then feel he was an asshole and didn't act in a way you expected ad trusted him to?!! That sounds very unfair IMO, to say the least, and I would not like to be someone playing with you under those circumstances. What's to stop you consenting and then later, on reflection over a day or 2, deciding you shouldn't have consented or just are not happy suddenly and lay criminal charges against the person? Let's face it, you could charge someone with rape, assault, kidnapping etc., just because you decide days later you are no longer as happy as you were when you walked away from the encounter perfectly happy with how things had gone.

I can understand you being turned off by a Dom who would "apologize profusely" (as you stated in a previous post). I didn't say or imply that's what I expected. Since you're on this mission to insult and discredit me by picking apart every word and sentence I've uttered or believe I have implied on this thread, I would say that discussion would have merited a (my) pressing concern, and an experienced and ethical Dom and a Dom worthy of respect would have expressed some sort of concern, genuine (not profuse) apology, and would take a situation like this as a learning experience.

I am not on a mission to do anything to you. That being said, I (and others) have found things you have said questionable, especially as you said you have previous experiences, and it is not typical for this forum to not call people on that. Sometimes on further explanation we see some clarification we didn't before, sometiems even become good friends. I suspect you originally posted believing you would have a lot of support and sympathy, but it didn't quite go that way, so next step is to make accusations toward those who do not agree with your POV. As CM said, his remarks as well as yours could be interpreted in text as flippant. Given you were happy when you parted way, I am sure he probably didn't think you were seriously concerned...why would he think otherwise? As CM also said, and I also some time back, if you didn't want visible marks and the bruising is on your butt, I'm not sure where else he could have risked marks so they wouldn't be visible...so where did he do you so wrong? Spanking and paddling are highly likely to leave marks, perhaps next time choose something that does not involve impact play.

Catalina