New Mistress needs advice

[Phoenix Stone]

I said there were two kinds of approaches to BDSM (and gray areas between.

Um, this reminds me of that old joke about there only being two kinds of people in the world (stop me if you've heard this one): those who think there are only two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't.

Point though, is that there are lots of ways and continuums for looking at bdsm (and anything else of course), and part of the problem in discussion can be one of definitions, especially when we talk about abstractions, rather than particular situations.

So, to get particular, the definition of selfishness, is part of what's throwing me here. (And part of what of course, paradoxically, interests me.) I'm gonna go back and parse this post bit by bit. Hope you don't mind. (You haven't seemed to but Others sure have complained. And I certainly don't, if you do the same to mine. Now that I've got that out of the way....)

One approach is based on equality and mutuality.

This is where I start to go 'hmm.' Equality and mutuality are two different things.

The people are equal partners, dedicated equally to the other's pleasure and well being.

There is something in here that, if you'll bear with me, I'd like to tease out. There are those who are dedicated to getting the other's pleasure, to Causing the other pleasure -- or, for that matter -- to causing the other pain. Then there are those for whom this whole matter is irrelevant. The ones who 'act on,' without regard, as long as the other is willing to stick around. They don't get off on what effect they have on their partner, but instead on doing things that they like to do.
One whips to get a reaction, or gives head for a reaction, the other because they enjoy whipping or licking for their own sensual pleasure, regardless of the reaction of the other. This way of looking at 'selfishness,' this continuum, as nothing to do with equality or mutuality. Either way could be seen as selfish, frankly. Trying to 'get' the other to have orgasms, or to scream from pain, can be as much of a d/s control issue, as considering the orgasms or screams of the pyl to be irrelevant.

On another matter, words like 'equal partners' often throw me, too, because of their abstraction. If you are both getting what you want, you may well feel equal, even if no one else would see it that way. Or, like many subs and some slaves seem to feel here, they have a sense of sort of universal Equality, without being, or wanting to be, at all 'equal' in their relationships. Mutuality seems to be used as a sort of quid pro quo term. The trick here being to give as much as is necessary to get what one wants, like in business. Best way to achieve this of course being to find someone with complementary needs, or to 'affect change' or otherwise influence the available one to take what you want to give. Again, like business but maybe with a bit of monopoly or other 'unfair' practice thrown in. What, I think, most people in other than brief relationships want (not to try to speak with too big a voice here) is that the other person be enjoying his/herself and getting fulfillment in the relationship.

The other extreme is an approach based on one partner putting his/her interests ("selfishly") ahead of the other, whenever s/he pleases (possibly all the time). This doesn't include killing the other, since you want to keep them around to torture, if that's the plan. This doesn't mean the other is allowed no pleasures, but only as part of a program to subordinate and/or demean them.

The italics added by me. I was with you until this last part. I don't see any reason why this would be a part of the selfish end of the continuum's approach. In fact, it seems to be a totally unrelated issue. To me, the selfish end would find doing this to be irrelevant. The only purpose the pyl would serve would be to serve. There are other ways to make this happen if it isn't. This doesn't mean that the 'selfish one' wouldn't want to demean, but it would be a side-kink, like say, scat or even bondage. Not part of the continuum. Also, even the 'interested selfish one' (as opposed to the disinterested) could be just as likely to want to elevate, adore and make the pyl a pet, for his/her own amusement, as to want to say, demean. If you disagree, please explain.

So my 'advice' or idea for oak, was that IF SHES SO INCLINED, she should put herself and her pleasures first. That's my personal preference.

This I understand. The next part I don't:

Allow his pleasures (orgasms) only when it enhances his degradation, as for instance, making him hard in disgusting situations.

One Could do this, I just don't see it naturally following from 'selfishness' of the disinterested sort. And of the 'interested selfish person,' only some would have, I believe, the urge to demean, for instance, either as a method of training, or just for its own sake.

Also, one angle left out of this whole discussion entirely, as far as I've seen, is that when one is being selfish, one may well have conflicting hierarchies of wants. For example, one could argue that my husband selfishly wishes to 'keep' me. And that to do so, he is likely to try different means. One might also argue that his wish that I be happy (whether I want to be or not ) is also conceivably selfish. Now, if, on top of that, he wishes me to be made happy by him performing certain actions (not just put up with the actions but be made happy by them), things get more complicated for us both. Now one could argue on the other side, that I selfishly wish to stay in relationship with him, wish him to be happy, and even selfishly am trying to influence him to enjoy certain actions. Is this mutuality? Or selfishness? I suppose the 'trying to find common ground' part is the mutuality.

Anyway, what do you think of my interested versus disinterested selfish types?

 

[Phoenix Stone]

I've always assumed that it's up to each person how much biography s/he posts on the 'net. Accordingly, I don't ask anyone (in public threads) to post biographical material.

Hah! Well, this one sure made me finally look at your profile, a thing I don't usually do. Pretty thin, Pure. Keepin' it abstract?

(ooh, gave a bunch of bio, here, then edited it. yikes. Sometimes I think about going back and erasing all the identifying stuff, like general geo location, for instance.)

 

[Phoenix Stone]

back on subject....

Hi Oakdew, one thing to consider from the discussion with Pure and others, is whether you or your guy prefer a more mutual or more 'selfish' arrangement. He may actually prefer or be fine with your not trying to appeal to him but being more self-oriented, trying to please yourself rather than worrying what he might want. Best way to find out is to ask.

It sounds like you are excited by topping, and maybe hadn't even considered how 'selfishly' you wanted to approach this? This IS only one way of looking at the whole experience. There are lots of other things to consider, if you feel like it.
For instance, how much are you and your guy into props and fetishy clothes and toys?

The other thing I get from your post -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- is that one thing you might want to get into goes under the category names of Adoration and perhaps Body Worship. If this would get your buttons going, you could demand that he call you Goddess or something, have him bathe you, kiss your feet, paint your nails.

Ownership is another angle, for which there are things like parading him on a leash, for instance.

If we knew a bit more of what you are looking for, you might get more practical advice, which is what I believe you asked for?

 

[RavenSpirit2k4]

Re: back on subject....

Hi Oakdew, one thing to consider from the discussion with Pure and others, is whether you or your guy prefer a more mutual or more 'selfish' arrangement. He may actually prefer or be fine with your not trying to appeal to him but being more self-oriented, trying to please yourself rather than worrying what he might want. Best way to find out is to ask.

It sounds like you are excited by topping, and maybe hadn't even considered how 'selfishly' you wanted to approach this? This IS only one way of looking at the whole experience. There are lots of other things to consider, if you feel like it.
For instance, how much are you and your guy into props and fetishy clothes and toys?

The other thing I get from your post -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- is that one thing you might want to get into goes under the category names of Adoration and perhaps Body Worship. If this would get your buttons going, you could demand that he call you Goddess or something, have him bathe you, kiss your feet, paint your nails.

Ownership is another angle, for which there are things like parading him on a leash, for instance.

If we knew a bit more of what you are looking for, you might get more practical advice, which is what I believe you asked for?

Very, very good points, Phoenix Stone. Some subs get off on the dom/me being more self-oriented, some hate that. The aloof, uncaring goddess is an archetype for a reason. I've never dealt with anyone like this myself, so I hadn't thought of that.

It seems like people in BDSM are always asking for advice from their "peers", if you will. But sometimes the best advice you can get comes from your opposite - you can get the best advice about being a dom/me from subs and the best advice for a sub can come from dom/mes.

Oh, and getting a little body worship is one of my kinks too.

 

[32199]

Re: Getting wetter just thinking about it

shelleb4: ooh, babe, i love your ideas. Wouldn't that just be awesome, make him ride behind ME? heh!

> Deny him sex, but indulge yourself. Get > someone in to do the job he cant. In
> front of him, but subdude by careful >restraint so that he cannot escape.

I have made arrangements with another young man, explained that I am going to use him to tease my sub, and that he is going to f u ck the heck out of me while my sub is tied to the chair ... and can't do a damn thing. The power is exhilirating!

How about straping him to the bed and letting the young man fuck you over his face while he has to lick your pussy and he is more than likely to have to lick your lovers cock at the same time.

I had an ex-gf that did this to me once, it was the sexiest, kinkiest thing I ever experienced...

 

[Oakdew]

>>>>How about straping him to the bed and letting the young man fuck you over his face while he has to lick your pussy and he is more than likely to have to lick your lovers cock at the same time.



Ooh, that's a great one. thanks!

 

[Phoenix Stone]

There is something in here that, if you'll bear with me, I'd like to tease out. There are those who are dedicated to getting the other's pleasure, to Causing the other pleasure -- or, for that matter -- to causing the other pain. Then there are those for whom this whole matter is irrelevant. The ones who 'act on,' without regard, as long as the other is willing to stick around. They don't get off on what effect they have on their partner, but instead on doing things that they like to do.
One whips to get a reaction, or gives head for a reaction, the other because they enjoy whipping or licking for their own sensual pleasure, regardless of the reaction of the other. This way of looking at 'selfishness,' this continuum, as nothing to do with equality or mutuality. Either way could be seen as selfish, frankly. Trying to 'get' the other to have orgasms, or to scream from pain, can be as much of a d/s control issue, as considering the orgasms or screams of the pyl to be irrelevant.

Anyway, what do you think of my interested versus disinterested selfish types?

Bringing this back up, hoping to get a reaction from Pure (and whomever else, of course.)