Titty-fuck: Humiliating, or not?

[gauchecritic]

As far as I can tell the only reason tit-fucking is humiliating is because of the name. How is frotting equivalent to fucking?

If it was called tit-frotting it would lose lots of its schoolboy appeal.

A hand-shandy (which I've always associated with being masturbated) isn't something to brag or bray about. There's no sex involved, it's a wank by someone else. "Did you get anywhere?", "Naa, she just gave me a wank."

As to the original 'inspiration' for the thread: Why have you got clips of tit-wanks all over your hard drive anyway Mck? Must be something intriguing you.

My personal preference for tit-frotting is as prelude. Partner above, and tits dragged slowly to encase balls then cock, then she presses inwards with upper arms moving her whole solid flesh from thighs to belly. Then onwards and upwards nipples grazing across chest until in position for penetration.

Gauche

 

[Raging Whoremoans]

You haven't been here long, have you, RMoans? Tip: swallow that mouthful of Diet Coke before reading anything by Math Girl.

Long enough to have picked up on that little tidbit.

Have lost a few drinks, thanks to you as well.

Well worth it, though. Any other tips you can think of?

I have been forewarned about yellow snow, so...

~ R W

my fav: Yo! thread. Vacation in Auntie Speak was also nice. Miss the Dubious Dictionary, though.

 

[Guest]

I'm not fond of "tits" or "titty," but I'm feeling rather crude tonight. I might even say cock. OMG, I just said it! Cock!

Mack, you're so adorable. I did not see this post til just now, otherwise I'd have responded to you immediately.

P, do you view it as a gift to your lover? Something you do because you know HE likes it, or do you like it too, especially the string of pearls at the end?

Yes. Yes I do. As I said, there's not much in it for me, so if he wants it, hopefully only as foreplay frottage, then I don't really mind. To go as far as a pearl necklace I'd have to like him a lot .

Frankly, I like Gauche's preference above. I was sorry when his paragraph ended .

Perdita

 

[patchman69]

you can stimulate your clit on any part of me

i have no beef with any part of my body a woman wants to grind herself against. I get horny just knowing i am making a woman hott and wet and if she gets off all the better

 

[McKenna]

As to the original 'inspiration' for the thread: Why have you got clips of tit-wanks all over your hard drive anyway Mck? Must be something intriguing you.

That's what I'm trying to figure out Gauche. I'm not making any progress, sadly.

It may require real-life research. Care to volunteer your services? A scientific approach is needed, methinks.

 

[McKenna]

Frankly, I like Gauche's preference above. I was sorry when his paragraph ended .

Me too. Would you care to join us in our scientific research? I could play research assistant and take notes while you two ... *ahem*




Thanks for being candid P., I appreciate your honesty in answering my questions.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

That's my big question. Is a titty-fuck a form of humiliation?

I'm pondering whether the use of a woman's body in that way constitutes a session in humiliation. Is it only humiliation if he cums on her breasts? If he neglects to bring her to orgasm afterwards (or before?)

This sounds like a test question for a John Ashcroft, Moral Majority sound-alike contest.

That's nobody's damn business but the folks involved. Next thing someone will be asking if it's humiliating to do it with the lights on or completely unclothed or in anything other than the missionary position and only then for procreation.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'd take a different tack: Is humiliation always humiliating?

Is it always humiliating when the man (or woman) takes charge of the sex and orders the other one around? Or can that be arousing as well? Is being on your knees always humiliating? Or is there such a thing as stooping to conquer?

My fiction usually involves power exchange and often involves the man taking what he wants from the woman, but I never think of my women as being humiliated by it. I think of them as being liberated by it. I think more sexual troubles are caused by people not asking or demanding what they want than they are by one person asking for too much.

What it comes down to is that the humiliation is present in the attitude, not the act.

---dr.M.

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Re: Re: Re: Titty-fuck: Humiliating, or not?

Wow. Did not see the political take on this coming. Well done RF. But did you fail to read the rest of the thread and why I was asking? I'm a little offended at your attitude and assumptions, frankly.

I'm only trying to understand why it must turn ME on, since I had so many vid clips of the act stored on my hard-drive.

I had no intentional of promoting a political view one way or the other. I believe there's a political thread for that.

Your motivation may have been personal but your question was universal. Emphasis mine:

I'm pondering whether the use of A WOMAN'S body in that way constitutes a session in humiliation. Is it only humiliation if he cums on HER BREASTS? If he neglects to bring her to orgasm afterwards (or before?)

For what it's worth, I don't think you meant it the way it sounded.

But did you fail to read the rest of the thread and why I was asking?"

Yes, but all I got from that was what prompted your question.

I'm a little offended at your attitude and assumptions, frankly.

Why, because you didn't see the "political take" on this coming?

Rumple Foreskin

 

[patchman69]

Political take

Gotta defend the input of the political here -- even though do believe we would never see eye to eye politically i do agree that the government has nu business telling us what we can and can not do. Right and wrong is a moral issue and what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is up to them. as for is it humiliating it is only humiliating if it is meant to be -- if both people want it it is erotic -- and that was why i made the post about a woman rubbing herself all ovar me and over any part of me she pleases. If it gives her pleasure then it pleases me to please her.

 

[Pure]

In Canada, the right and the censors and even some judges, a decade ago decided that 'cum' hitting the (usually woman's) face was degrading, and insisting on cuts, accordingly. Of course the censors had to watch vigilantly throughout the movie, since even a drop would offend.

A Rumple suggested, there is a view that some events are intrinsically (as well as 'on their face', so to say) degrading or humiliating--- however some say just getting laid (non conjugally) fits the bill.


What I wonder is what became of all the cut out portions; were they sold to the video folk that advertise 200 shots in 2 hrs, best of the best.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The idea of "power exchange" is interesting too; I've mostly heard it in reference to dominant/submissive relationships. I'm not entirely sure I understand the theory behind it, but I'm trying. One gives in and trades what power they have for the opportunity to be dominated? Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

"Power exchange" is just a term that recognizes the usual BDSM dynamic. Contrary to what happens in a lot of Lit stories, BDSM is a consensual activity. The sub has to willingly cede control to the Dom, otherwise all you have is struggle and maybe rape, which might make for a good fantasy, but which I think (hope) very few people would really want to try, from either end.

Most sexual engagements are power exchanges more or less. Usually there's an aggressor and an acceptor, even if positions of power change during the act. "Power exchange" just recognizes this fact and expands the idea

I suppose each sub would have his/her own ideas on what they get out of giving up control, but in my view the sub gets to be the center of attention (the idea of being immobilized and played with and caressed can be very flattering, even worshipful), is relieved of the obligation of having to reciprocate, and is absolved of guilt for anything that might happen. Plus, the knowledge that he is in "control" causes some men to get very creative and passionate. It's these men, in fact, who tend to be on the other side of the exchange.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

OTOH, it should be noted that the 'power exchange' concept has received extensive analysis AND critique; it's perhaps a loose metaphor for the makings of mutual gratification; or for consent; ask any two bdsm persons or 'authorities' what exactly is 'exchanged' and you'll get many different answers.

On the thread theme, it's perhaps relevant to note that prostitutes happily offer titty fucking, in many cases; i.e., what the wives won't do, or aren't asked to do, is sometimes a big element in the male fantasy, perhaps as 'humiliation' of the woman. As to the *actual* humiliation**; the pro showers off and laughs all the way to the bank, with far fewer worries about STDs and other misadventures.

J.

**And as to who _actually_ holds the power

------


dr. m said,


"Power exchange" is just a term that recognizes the usual BDSM dynamic. Contrary to what happens in a lot of Lit stories, BDSM is a consensual activity. The sub has to willingly cede control to the Dom, otherwise all you have is struggle and maybe rape, which might make for a good fantasy, but which I think (hope) very few people would really want to try, from either end.

Most sexual engagements are power exchanges more or less. Usually there's an aggressor and an acceptor, even if positions of power change during the act. "Power exchange" just recognizes this fact and expands the idea

I suppose each sub would have his/her own ideas on what they get out of giving up control, but in my view the sub gets to be the center of attention (the idea of being immobilized and played with and caressed can be very flattering, even worshipful), is relieved of the obligation of having to reciprocate, and is absolved of guilt for anything that might happen. Plus, the knowledge that he is in "control" causes some men to get very creative and passionate. It's these men, in fact, who tend to be on the other side of the exchange.

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I hadn't ever heard it put quite this way Dr. M., thanks for your take on it. The sub being the "center of attention" is a new concept; I guess I've always viewed those situations as being more about the dom and what the dom needs/wants than the sub. I've seen the sub as a "victim," which would help explain the difficulty in trying to reason out why anyone would want to be in such a position.

BDSM spans the spectrum, I guess, from playing caveman to some really violent S&M, but in my view, the sub is the center of attention. He/she is the subject and the object, the victim and enabler, the focus of all the action. It is the sub's boundaries that are crossed, whose frontiers are pushed. It's not by accident that the sub often stands in a spotlight while the Dom hovers in the shadows. It's a show: theater in which the players are also the spectators. The Dom might be the director, but the sub is the star.

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

BDSM spans the spectrum, I guess, from playing caveman to some really violent S&M, but in my view, the sub is the center of attention. He/she is the subject and the object, the victim and enabler, the focus of all the action. It is the sub's boundaries that are crossed, whose frontiers are pushed. It's not by accident that the sub often stands in a spotlight while the Dom hovers in the shadows. It's a show: theater in which the players are also the spectators. The Dom might be the director, but the sub is the star.

---dr.M.

Very well said, Dr. M.!

That is a very accurate take on a D/s relationship, during the "play".

Lou

 

[Lord Naraku]

Well this is my viewpoint, "titty fucking" is more of a domination fetish. Mostly b/c the woman is in lower position servicing the man. Pretty much any humiliation is a non consent fetish.

Theory: would grinding a man's nose with your pussy be something like a TF? Maybe he's gagged or can't bring his tongue into play?

 

[Lord Naraku]

You know after posting that last bit. I have a feeling after Talelou reads that she's going to get the ball gag and a pair of googles for her huby Adam. Just don't drown him, it's a good way to go but he's got kids.

 

[Pure]

dr. m said,

in my view, the sub is the center of attention. He/she is the subject and the object, the victim and enabler, the focus of all the action. [...]

It's a show: theater in which the players are also the spectators. The Dom might be the director, but the sub is the star.




I think this is right on. First, there is the well known phenomenon of the 'princess sub.' Also the sub with 200 rules, limits, and details as to what may happen according to pre-agreement. It's a small step from that to saying that some subs are not only after lavish attention but rather complete control of the situation (show). For such cases--in a word: Subs rule!**


**In terms of the idea of 'power exchange', this suggests some subs hold (are given) the predominant power in the relationship.

 

[Guest]

You know after posting that last bit. I have a feeling after Talelou reads that she's going to get the ball gag and a pair of googles for her huby Adam. Just don't drown him, it's a good way to go but he's got kids.

Nope, I'd never do that. Not because I'm overly worried about his well-being, but because I'm sub.

Lou

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[gauchecritic]

How can a sub be in "complete control of the situation?"

Because sub and dom are both concentual. When the sub says stop it stops, otherwise it's rape.

Gauche