Heteros submitting to bisexual encounters
- Thread starter monster666
- Start date
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Think this is a worthwhile bump for those who are newer here and may want to contribute.
Catalina
Catalina
ownedsubgal
lost little girl
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2003
- Posts
- 2,996
my Master has made me do sexual things, or submit to sexual things, with other women before, just because he knows it's so completely unnatural for me, so horribly uncomfortable. He would never have me with a female Dominant, but with other submissives, or with vanilla females, that may happen from time to time. it never goes so far as full blown sex, because that would actually turn him off (two women together sexually has never interested him), but primarily things like me serving a man with another woman, other women touching me, me touching another woman. all are immensely difficult for me, and my struggling, embarassment, discomfort, disgust...that is amusing and arousing to him.
dragonlace
a wolfs angel
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2002
- Posts
- 3,283
I had never, before Master, been with another woman actively. I had been in a threesome before but i was tied and played with i never had to do the playing but for Him it seems easy and effortless. I still don't look at women sexually and don't see them as i see men but if it makes Him happy it doesn't bother me. His pleasure makes it worthwhile and actually exciting as its something i am doing for Him. I guess maybe its because i am comfortable with my sexuality and it doesn't bother me. Do you think its a question of comfort or belief that makes it difficult for some?
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
I'm not sure how this concept works of a completely hetero person being sexual with someone of the same sex. I think it would equate to having to be sexual with someone you have a strong sexual aversion to for whatever reason, to the point of feeling you have been sexually assaulted/raped, and emotionally and psychologically damaged. This may not be so for all, but I think it is a very real possibility for some to experience such a command in this negative and damaging way.
I think perhaps playing a passive role may solve some of the difficulties, though still not for everyone. There are so many variables here that can affect the submissive in this situation. I know personally if I am in a sexual situation which involves direct contact with someone I have a strong repulsion for, it is difficult to suppress a physical reaction to that feeling, so I can see how it could be an issue for others. Some things trancsend the desire to obey no matter the desire to please. I thank the universe I am bisexual and so when I am expected to interact with another, though it may at times be more difficult than others, I am hoping in some way I can find a way to overcome any misgivings I may have for whatever reason.
Catalina
I think perhaps playing a passive role may solve some of the difficulties, though still not for everyone. There are so many variables here that can affect the submissive in this situation. I know personally if I am in a sexual situation which involves direct contact with someone I have a strong repulsion for, it is difficult to suppress a physical reaction to that feeling, so I can see how it could be an issue for others. Some things trancsend the desire to obey no matter the desire to please. I thank the universe I am bisexual and so when I am expected to interact with another, though it may at times be more difficult than others, I am hoping in some way I can find a way to overcome any misgivings I may have for whatever reason.
Catalina
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Personally I take my cues from the bottom. I play with enough lesbians that can handle playing with a bio-male person and enough who totally *can't* that I don't force that issue.
Likewise, I take my cues about forced bisexuality from the bottom. My own sexuality is too precarious and critical for me to play God with other people's randomly...
those expressions of interest, though, those confessions of "gee I wonder what it'd be like to do CBT on a crossdressed sissy" or whatever, those I see as fair game.
Likewise, I take my cues about forced bisexuality from the bottom. My own sexuality is too precarious and critical for me to play God with other people's randomly...
those expressions of interest, though, those confessions of "gee I wonder what it'd be like to do CBT on a crossdressed sissy" or whatever, those I see as fair game.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
N:"My own sexuality is too precarious and critical for me to play God with other people's randomly..."
It would be 'randomly' of course; more 'cruelly.'
{{Added: Last line should read: "It would NOT be randomly, of course, but more like 'cruelly.' --- too early in the morning for typing; leaving out a damned 'not'}}
It would be 'randomly' of course; more 'cruelly.'
{{Added: Last line should read: "It would NOT be randomly, of course, but more like 'cruelly.' --- too early in the morning for typing; leaving out a damned 'not'}}
Last edited:
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
I guess. Or "stupidly" would be a good one too.
It's no problem to convince the "straight" girl who just needs a little push, it's another to confront the honestly wired 99.999-100 percent straight girl that pussy is fun.
I bottomed butch. I explained 100 different ways and 100 different times that I didn't do forced femme and using girly monikers for my parts and me would mean the deal was off. People constantly insisted on doing otherwise and were surprised when I was the worst bottom they ever encountered and I'd simply leave.
Respect me, respect the genderfuck, respect the preference. If you can't come up with that, find some other bitch to service you.
It's no problem to convince the "straight" girl who just needs a little push, it's another to confront the honestly wired 99.999-100 percent straight girl that pussy is fun.
I bottomed butch. I explained 100 different ways and 100 different times that I didn't do forced femme and using girly monikers for my parts and me would mean the deal was off. People constantly insisted on doing otherwise and were surprised when I was the worst bottom they ever encountered and I'd simply leave.
Respect me, respect the genderfuck, respect the preference. If you can't come up with that, find some other bitch to service you.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
N: //confront the honestly wired 99.999-100 percent straight girl that pussy is fun.//
Just how much 'fun' is your bottom supposed to have?
Who exactly is 100% straight wired, and why do they do as they do when in prison?
Or merely left alone with the sheep?
Just how much 'fun' is your bottom supposed to have?
Who exactly is 100% straight wired, and why do they do as they do when in prison?
Or merely left alone with the sheep?
ReadyOne
Ready to Rock!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2003
- Posts
- 2,102
It's not my practice to sub, though ocassionally I can get into it. I almost never truely give up control to my partner.
At an eariler point in my life, I considered many of the acts that MM can do and decided that I definetly did not want to be on either end of most of them.
Then I was part of a MFM where, unplanned and unanticipated by me, the lady led me through most of those acts, and I enjoyed them, some very much. Note that I said "led" not "compelled" or "ordered".
What I realized was my adversions disappeared because I felt safe in the lady's presence.
Afterward I declined an invite from the guy for MM, because I was uncomfortable with the situtation. Not with him per se -- after all, I'd not excluded him from the MFM when given a veto -- but what ever resistance I had against MM didn't disappear after the MFM.
But that was then, and I've grown since then. I don't seek MM, but when it comes I now enjoy it.
At an eariler point in my life, I considered many of the acts that MM can do and decided that I definetly did not want to be on either end of most of them.
Then I was part of a MFM where, unplanned and unanticipated by me, the lady led me through most of those acts, and I enjoyed them, some very much. Note that I said "led" not "compelled" or "ordered".
What I realized was my adversions disappeared because I felt safe in the lady's presence.
Afterward I declined an invite from the guy for MM, because I was uncomfortable with the situtation. Not with him per se -- after all, I'd not excluded him from the MFM when given a veto -- but what ever resistance I had against MM didn't disappear after the MFM.
But that was then, and I've grown since then. I don't seek MM, but when it comes I now enjoy it.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Pure, enough fun so they don't stomp out the door and say nasty things about me and stick pins in my voodoo image.
But I'm kind of mainstream that way. I think there should be something mutualistic in a T/b relationship and I don't personally expect nor accept feeling shat psychically on as a bottom, about the things I expressly delineate as "don't fucking go there."
And I don't buy that the whole world is bi.
Much as it'd be more fun for me.
But I'm kind of mainstream that way. I think there should be something mutualistic in a T/b relationship and I don't personally expect nor accept feeling shat psychically on as a bottom, about the things I expressly delineate as "don't fucking go there."
And I don't buy that the whole world is bi.
Much as it'd be more fun for me.
Last edited:
Etoile
Mod, 2003-2015
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Posts
- 17,049
We didn't have a GLBT Chatter board when this thread was originally created, but we do now. I'm not sure this thread would really belong there, as it fits quite well here, but I did want to mention it if anybody isn't aware of its existence.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Netzach,
you said,
["How much fun is your bottom supposed to have?"]
Pure, enough fun so they don't stomp out the door and say nasty things about me and stick pins in my voodoo image.
Well, if they weren't dragged IN the door, unknowing, and if they indicated aquiescence to a "bottoming" event, then they can stomp, pray to Jesus, become a nun, buy a butt plug, or send money to the moral majority afterwards; what concern is it to you?
But I'm kind of mainstream that way. I think there should be something mutualistic in a T/b relationship
Holy Jumpin' Jehosephat! "I'm going to top you, but in a mutualistic way!" Please say it ain't true.
The thread topic was 'encounters', not 'swear-you'll-love-me forever' lifestyle kink.
and I don't personally expect nor accept feeling shat psychically on as a bottom,
Does this translate as 'Do not degrade me"? or "If you degrade me, do so mutualistically"?
about the things I expressly delineate as "don't fucking go there."
When I hear that, and see the menacing glare, I say, "OK, honey, you better be the top, then!"
And I don't buy that the whole world is bi.
Much as it'd be more fun for me.
I didn't say the whole world was 'bi'; I denied there were people 'wired 100% straight', to use your terms. Iow, they are adaptable; that's what their sexual behavior in, for example, prison situations shows. That a person gets it on with one of the same sex, in such a situation, does not indicate they are 'bi.'
Hey, I like your thorny side better than your rosey one!
with all appropriate mutuality and respect,
J.
you said,
["How much fun is your bottom supposed to have?"]
Pure, enough fun so they don't stomp out the door and say nasty things about me and stick pins in my voodoo image.
Well, if they weren't dragged IN the door, unknowing, and if they indicated aquiescence to a "bottoming" event, then they can stomp, pray to Jesus, become a nun, buy a butt plug, or send money to the moral majority afterwards; what concern is it to you?
But I'm kind of mainstream that way. I think there should be something mutualistic in a T/b relationship
Holy Jumpin' Jehosephat! "I'm going to top you, but in a mutualistic way!" Please say it ain't true.
The thread topic was 'encounters', not 'swear-you'll-love-me forever' lifestyle kink.
and I don't personally expect nor accept feeling shat psychically on as a bottom,
Does this translate as 'Do not degrade me"? or "If you degrade me, do so mutualistically"?
about the things I expressly delineate as "don't fucking go there."
When I hear that, and see the menacing glare, I say, "OK, honey, you better be the top, then!"
And I don't buy that the whole world is bi.
Much as it'd be more fun for me.
I didn't say the whole world was 'bi'; I denied there were people 'wired 100% straight', to use your terms. Iow, they are adaptable; that's what their sexual behavior in, for example, prison situations shows. That a person gets it on with one of the same sex, in such a situation, does not indicate they are 'bi.'
Hey, I like your thorny side better than your rosey one!
with all appropriate mutuality and respect,
J.
Last edited:
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Pure said:Hi Netzach,
you said,
["How much fun is your bottom supposed to have?"]
Pure, enough fun so they don't stomp out the door and say nasty things about me and stick pins in my voodoo image.
Well, if they weren't dragged IN the door, unknowing, and if they indicated aquiescence to a "bottoming" event, then they can stomp, pray to Jesus, become a nun, buy a butt plug, or send money to the moral majority afterwards; what concern is it to you?
Let's assume this is a friend as well as a toy, someone who I actually have to *deal* with, not just a client, though I treat them the same way, too. I do want them to have overall feelings of positive towards me. That's just called not being a sociopath.
Holy Jumpin' Jehosephat! "I'm going to top you, but in a mutualistic way!" Please say it ain't true.
The thread topic was 'encounters', not 'swear-you'll-love-me forever' lifestyle kink.
Hold the phone there...the suck-ee may have tangential relationship to the suck-er in this case, I'm thinking the Directrice in this case may have a big ol' bond to the sucker, or would-be sucker.
Does this translate as 'Do not degrade me"? or "If you degrade me, do so mutualistically"?
Let's just say it's the emotional equivalent of I think it's fine if you want to cane my ass, I don't however think it's OK for you to pierce my cheek with a skewer, and you don't get to cane my ass if you can't assure me that you aren't going to skewer my face.
Is that unreasonable "negotiation" to you?
When I hear that, and see the menacing glare, I say, "OK, honey, you better be the top, then!"
I yam what I yam, even if I periodically didn't mind some boot worship, I guess.
I didn't say the whole world was 'bi'; I denied there were people 'wired 100% straight', to use your terms. Iow, they are adaptable; that's what their sexual behavior in, for example, prison situations shows. That a person gets it on with one of the same sex, in such a situation, does not indicate they are 'bi.'
I don't have data on what percentage of the populus would engage in the desperation fuck of prison and what percentage doesn't voluntarily do so. I'm slightly curious, actually. I think most people are sexually malleable to that degree, but I also think that there are exclusively homosexual and heterosexual people who don't bend that way without breaking.
Which, sorry to shatter your adoration, is *not* my MO in SM pursuits.
Hey, I like your thorny side better than your rosey one!
with all appropriate mutuality and respect,
J.
Maybe I should move to the suburbs.
~N.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
To be forwarded to Netzach's new suburban address:
Hi,
There are lots of issues on the table, some maybe not in the main stream of this thread, but here are a couple comments [P]. Your most recent comments in italics.
Netzach: [bottom should have] enough fun so they don't stomp out the door and say nasty things about me and stick pins in my voodoo image.
Pure: Well, if they weren't dragged IN the door, unknowing, and if they indicated aquiescence to a "bottoming" event, then they can stomp, pray to Jesus, become a nun, buy a butt plug, or send money to the moral majority afterwards; what concern is it to you?
Netzach: Let's assume this is a friend as well as a toy, someone who I actually have to *deal* with, not just a client, though I treat them the same way, too. I do want them to have overall feelings of positive towards me. That's just called not being a sociopath.
P: I think it's great when sex partners or sex-work-clients are friends, and I agree one doesn't want to alienate friends.
P:However, it is not a necessary part of a top/bottom or sexual encounter that there be friendship. Either party may just walk away afterward. I see nothing sociopathic in such a scene unless a crime has been committed. In short, neutral feeling is a perfectly acceptable outcome, imo.
P:Further, assuming a partner is a friend, how is the demand for degradation, for example met.? They ask for it, not a pale imitation, or nicey sham scene. They (or actually both) need to be prepared for something other than unalloyed joy, immediately after.
---
Pure: Holy Jumpin' Jehosephat! "I'm going to top you, but in a mutualistic way!" Please say it ain't true.
The thread topic was 'encounters', not 'swear-you'll-love-me forever' lifestyle kink.
Netzach: Hold the phone there...the suck-ee may have tangential relationship to the suck-er in this case, I'm thinking the Directrice in this case may have a big ol' bond to the sucker, or would-be sucker.
P:I agree about preserving bonds, but didn't see that as essential to the question of the thread. Discussed above.
---
Pure: Does this translate as 'Do not degrade me"? or "If you degrade me, do so mutualistically"?
Netzach: Let's just say it's the emotional equivalent of I think it's fine if you want to cane my ass, I don't however think it's OK for you to pierce my cheek with a skewer, and you don't get to cane my ass if you can't assure me that you aren't going to skewer my face.
Is that unreasonable "negotiation" to you?
P:That's a good point. But it's a bit unclear about this term 'emotional equivalent.'
P:But your example, I would deal with as follows. There is an unspoken understanding (lacking something explicit, to the contrary), I'd say, in kinky folk who encounter one another: that the one 'bottom' is not to end up in the hospital ER, or at the police station with an assault complaint, with the other, the top liable to end up in jail.
P:That's the *context, and not a matter of negotiation. If you have to request, or ask for agreement on this, you'd better think twice.
(If you're scared, saying "do you promise not to rape me" and getting a 'yes' response, is not a safe way to proceed.)
P:That established, the instrument applied (and mode and duration thereof) to the ass or cheek is not to be specified by the bottom; if so, that "bottom" is the top.
P:As to 'emotional equivalent' then, I'd say, Yes, don't put someone into the psychiatric ward, or requiring years of therapy for PTSD.
P:To return to the point of the thread: it's by no means clear that most of the alleged 100% straight folks are going to be permanently traumatized by (consensual) imposition of a 'gay' contact. After all, they have an excuse, if they want it.
Lastly, you said,
I don't have data on what percentage of the populus would engage in the desperation fuck of prison and what percentage doesn't voluntarily do so. I'm slightly curious, actually. I think most people are sexually malleable to that degree, but I also think that there are exclusively homosexual and heterosexual people who don't bend that way without breaking.
P:I don't see all of what happens in prison as that dramatic. I don't have numbers either, but there's no reason to suppose--in general, i.e., in most cases-- that a consensual prison encounter is going to 'break' the person because of their brittle straightness. Again, material for rationalization is abundant: "I just was not myself in there." "I had to survive." etc.
P:Brittle folk are not meant for bottoming. But I agree that should one turn up, their consent is to be respected, as well as applicable laws. They can then experiment as 'quasi-bottoms.'
Hi,
There are lots of issues on the table, some maybe not in the main stream of this thread, but here are a couple comments [P]. Your most recent comments in italics.
Netzach: [bottom should have] enough fun so they don't stomp out the door and say nasty things about me and stick pins in my voodoo image.
Pure: Well, if they weren't dragged IN the door, unknowing, and if they indicated aquiescence to a "bottoming" event, then they can stomp, pray to Jesus, become a nun, buy a butt plug, or send money to the moral majority afterwards; what concern is it to you?
Netzach: Let's assume this is a friend as well as a toy, someone who I actually have to *deal* with, not just a client, though I treat them the same way, too. I do want them to have overall feelings of positive towards me. That's just called not being a sociopath.
P: I think it's great when sex partners or sex-work-clients are friends, and I agree one doesn't want to alienate friends.
P:However, it is not a necessary part of a top/bottom or sexual encounter that there be friendship. Either party may just walk away afterward. I see nothing sociopathic in such a scene unless a crime has been committed. In short, neutral feeling is a perfectly acceptable outcome, imo.
P:Further, assuming a partner is a friend, how is the demand for degradation, for example met.? They ask for it, not a pale imitation, or nicey sham scene. They (or actually both) need to be prepared for something other than unalloyed joy, immediately after.
---
Pure: Holy Jumpin' Jehosephat! "I'm going to top you, but in a mutualistic way!" Please say it ain't true.
The thread topic was 'encounters', not 'swear-you'll-love-me forever' lifestyle kink.
Netzach: Hold the phone there...the suck-ee may have tangential relationship to the suck-er in this case, I'm thinking the Directrice in this case may have a big ol' bond to the sucker, or would-be sucker.
P:I agree about preserving bonds, but didn't see that as essential to the question of the thread. Discussed above.
---
Pure: Does this translate as 'Do not degrade me"? or "If you degrade me, do so mutualistically"?
Netzach: Let's just say it's the emotional equivalent of I think it's fine if you want to cane my ass, I don't however think it's OK for you to pierce my cheek with a skewer, and you don't get to cane my ass if you can't assure me that you aren't going to skewer my face.
Is that unreasonable "negotiation" to you?
P:That's a good point. But it's a bit unclear about this term 'emotional equivalent.'
P:But your example, I would deal with as follows. There is an unspoken understanding (lacking something explicit, to the contrary), I'd say, in kinky folk who encounter one another: that the one 'bottom' is not to end up in the hospital ER, or at the police station with an assault complaint, with the other, the top liable to end up in jail.
P:That's the *context, and not a matter of negotiation. If you have to request, or ask for agreement on this, you'd better think twice.
(If you're scared, saying "do you promise not to rape me" and getting a 'yes' response, is not a safe way to proceed.)
P:That established, the instrument applied (and mode and duration thereof) to the ass or cheek is not to be specified by the bottom; if so, that "bottom" is the top.
P:As to 'emotional equivalent' then, I'd say, Yes, don't put someone into the psychiatric ward, or requiring years of therapy for PTSD.
P:To return to the point of the thread: it's by no means clear that most of the alleged 100% straight folks are going to be permanently traumatized by (consensual) imposition of a 'gay' contact. After all, they have an excuse, if they want it.
Lastly, you said,
I don't have data on what percentage of the populus would engage in the desperation fuck of prison and what percentage doesn't voluntarily do so. I'm slightly curious, actually. I think most people are sexually malleable to that degree, but I also think that there are exclusively homosexual and heterosexual people who don't bend that way without breaking.
P:I don't see all of what happens in prison as that dramatic. I don't have numbers either, but there's no reason to suppose--in general, i.e., in most cases-- that a consensual prison encounter is going to 'break' the person because of their brittle straightness. Again, material for rationalization is abundant: "I just was not myself in there." "I had to survive." etc.
P:Brittle folk are not meant for bottoming. But I agree that should one turn up, their consent is to be respected, as well as applicable laws. They can then experiment as 'quasi-bottoms.'
Last edited:
Etoile
Mod, 2003-2015
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Posts
- 17,049
That's a good thought. I think it would be helpful if the third party were a somewhat dominating personality as well, even if not actively in the D/s scene involved, but just enough to understand the purpose of the interaction.Texture said:
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Texture,
you said,
I am wondering if it is good for the third party to have sex with someone who isn't enjoying it on a physical level?
I'm not sure if you mean, in the law, or in morality. Certainly any third party would do well to respect the law and exercise caution: i.e., you don't walk into a room, see B bound and gagged, and take A's word that A is the top, B's the bottom, and that you have B's permission to fuck him/her (B).
A similar point might be made about the ethics of the situation: it's wrong to impose sex on someone who's saying or trying to, "don't do it." It foolish to assume certain things, as above.
As to having sex with someone not enjoying it, from the third party's view. I say it's up to them. For instance anyone paying for sex is likely dealing with a non enjoyment situation. If that is acceptable or a turn on, fine. If not, don't pay someone, but find a lover.
HOWEVER: I don't see this as a thread saying "You ought to do this" or "It's wrong to do that." No one in any thread is (or should be) handing down commandments, or has any special moral authority.
I look on it this way. If there's a game of baseball, there are agreed rules for such things as stealing bases. You can't just distract the pitcher with a thrown firecracker and steal first. It's not illegal or wrong to run to first (on that basis), but it's not baseball.
Similarly the issues of 'should a top demand such and such of the bottom?' have a pattern. It's a kind of sexual practice (arrangement). Within that pattern are 'rules'. But morality or legality is not the issue.
I say, for instance, above, "the bottom should not dictate the exact manner of pain infliction or punishment." To do so, however, is neither wrong, nor illegal. It's just that a 'bottom' who starts bossing has opted out of the 'game' or arrangement. Or, s/he may be in the game, but acting like a 'top.'
The issue of third parties can be addressed in a similar manner, leaving in another compartment the legal and moral issues.
you said,
I am wondering if it is good for the third party to have sex with someone who isn't enjoying it on a physical level?
I'm not sure if you mean, in the law, or in morality. Certainly any third party would do well to respect the law and exercise caution: i.e., you don't walk into a room, see B bound and gagged, and take A's word that A is the top, B's the bottom, and that you have B's permission to fuck him/her (B).
A similar point might be made about the ethics of the situation: it's wrong to impose sex on someone who's saying or trying to, "don't do it." It foolish to assume certain things, as above.
As to having sex with someone not enjoying it, from the third party's view. I say it's up to them. For instance anyone paying for sex is likely dealing with a non enjoyment situation. If that is acceptable or a turn on, fine. If not, don't pay someone, but find a lover.
HOWEVER: I don't see this as a thread saying "You ought to do this" or "It's wrong to do that." No one in any thread is (or should be) handing down commandments, or has any special moral authority.
I look on it this way. If there's a game of baseball, there are agreed rules for such things as stealing bases. You can't just distract the pitcher with a thrown firecracker and steal first. It's not illegal or wrong to run to first (on that basis), but it's not baseball.
Similarly the issues of 'should a top demand such and such of the bottom?' have a pattern. It's a kind of sexual practice (arrangement). Within that pattern are 'rules'. But morality or legality is not the issue.
I say, for instance, above, "the bottom should not dictate the exact manner of pain infliction or punishment." To do so, however, is neither wrong, nor illegal. It's just that a 'bottom' who starts bossing has opted out of the 'game' or arrangement. Or, s/he may be in the game, but acting like a 'top.'
The issue of third parties can be addressed in a similar manner, leaving in another compartment the legal and moral issues.
submissiveknight
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Posts
- 103
Hello I'm new to replying,but have been reading boards for years now. In my situation,I prefer to please my Princess,She difinitely has a desire to see two males together especially since She would be dominating the scene. As for me being a straight sub I would difinitely feel very unaccustumed to being with another male. I would think it would be more in the physical end of attractiveness rather than in the sexual end. She knows that I'm not very attracted to males, although I have had bi-sexual encounters before and have explained to Her that it was more of the sex craved at the time and wonderment of the experience. She knows that I enjoy playing with Her cock and that I wouldn't get repulsed if She so desired me to play with another cock. If it came down to pleasing my Mistress with Her desire to see me with another male for Her enjoyment She knows that I would give my all out effort to please Her.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
I heard an interesting observation from George Michael in an interview once where he said it was not who or what gender you could get it up for which defined your sexuality, but more so who you could get it up for and maintain a deep emotional connection with. Makes sense.
Catalina
Catalina
