I had a message from a nice lady we’ll call “P”, about male chastity and female domination.
She said, in part:
“I feel that you are missing the fun part with this lifestyle by not incorporating the femdom lifestyle with the chastity”
Now this was only one sentence in a message of about 20 or so sentences, so I’m not having a go at this lady at all (the rest of the message variously touched on the difficulty of finding belts and devices for long-term wear, and how real-life tends to get in the way of the fantasy – all good stuff and generally aimed at wishing John and me luck in our quest for a year’s orgasm denial). It’s just one sentence which highlights a constant source of frustration and occasionally even irritation for me.
P’s comment is necessarily subjective. She says so in the first two words: “I feel”. And that’s as far as I need to go, really. Because it’s a personal opinion and it’s no different from any other personal opinion – it’s, well… personal. Male chastity and how you fit it into your life is also a purely personal thing. Getting this message over is perhaps the raison d’être for this Blog and indeed, both the Free Guide and the Ultimate Guide (which is well on the way).
I think people are missing out on a lot of fun by not working from home as a freelance writer; but tell someone who hates writing, and they’ll give you an odd look. John thinks people who don’t speak at business conferences are missing out on a lot of fun, but research shows most people fear public speaking more than they fear death itself.
Now, as I have said over and over again any control I have or want over John is confined to control over his orgasms. That’s it. I can’t put it any simpler than that. And it’s nothing to do with domination or female superiority any more than cunnilingus has to do with Michelin stars.
For us, male chastity is just another kinky game, no different from, say, spanking or playing with a dildo or chocolate body paint. I think perhaps people assume it “must” be different because it’s played out over a long period of time (although even this isn’t true for some couples); and because it’s often found in relationships which also involve D&S.
Well correlation is not causality. I’m sure D&S couples also own motor cars and eat bread, but I hope no one would claim driving motor cars or eating bread is necessarily a sign you’re in a D&S relationship.
Now, the reason we don’t have a D&S relationship mixed in with the male chastity is quite simply we don’t want one. I don’t feel I’m missing anything because it simply doesn’t interest me, in the same way I don’t feel I’m missing anything because I don’t go to church, eat scat or ride a pogo-stick.
And not only do neither of us not want one, I, personally find submissive men completely unattractive. They don’t do anything for me at all. Not even a little bit.
As I’ve said over and over again, I like my men to be strong, confident, assertive and masculine. A man’s submission to me, as opposed to his surrender would be as erotic as dumping a bucket of cold piss over me.
If anything, I prefer John to be dominant. Even when he’s in male chastity and orgasm denial, sometimes I like him to be aggressive with me, hold me down and fuck me hard, pinning me to the bed while I come over and over again. He still doesn’t get to come, of course, but I get everything I want from it, including the pleasure of realising my feminine power to fan the inferno of his desire for me.
I do understand P wasn’t equating male chastity with female domination and was merely pointing out she feels it’s something I might enjoy if I tried it. However, there are those who simply won’t accept they are not the same thing, and one doesn’t even imply the other.
But as for trying it… I don’t want to because I know the result won’t be something I find appealing: a submissive man. To me submissive men aren’t sexy. It’s as simple as that. If they are to you, then that’s fine. But to me they never have been, are not now, and in all likelihood never will be.
Don’t think I’ve not thought about this and turned it over in my mind. I have.
And my informed decision is it’s simply not something I want. I’m perfectly happy living the male chastity lifestyle as simply that, without all the other stuff people seem to want to force into the mix.
End of story.
Related posts
- Male Chastity Milking (Three Fun Ways to Do It)
- Male Chastity Health and Safety
- The Male Chastity Lifestyle and Fixing Your Marriage
- Male Chastity and Control
- Male Chastity, Independence and Liberty
He still doesn’t get to come, of course, but I get everything I want from it, including the pleasure of realising my feminine power to fan the inferno of his desire for me.
:sighs:
Spoken like a true Domme. Maybe you just don’t know that you are…
Behave, Mr Tom or… or… or… I’ll stamp my little foot peevishly!
Sarah.
That’s what sort of confused me about your comment on my comment yesterday. If you use the more nebulous definitions of D&s like “consensual power exchange” or “negotiated co-dependence” etc. Then Male Chastity is D&s and it’s part of your relationship. It’s obviously not the sum total but to say “… there is no D&S aspect to John’s chastity. None whatsoever.” strikes me as impossible. The fact that John *wanted* to call you “Mistress” leads me to think he sees some D&s in your kinky game (but obviously you know him better than I).
I don’t think that just because D&s occupies one aspect of your relationship that it must be the umbrella under which your whole relationship is defined.
FWIW being the s in D&s doesn’t mean you can’t be aggressive, or fuck your partner hard (I do every time I’m told!), disagree, have your own opinions, etc. At least in my mind. You can be an s and being your own, strong willed, independent, person.
but to say “… there is no D&S aspect to John’s chastity. None whatsoever.” strikes me as impossible.
Christians use the same argument against evolution — they don’t understand it, so God Did It. Your inability to put your own feelings in that space doesn’t mean it’s not there and no one else can get there.
“The fact that John *wanted* to call you ‘Mistress’ leads me to think he sees some D&s in your kinky game (but obviously you know him better than I).”
Well, not only do I know John better than you do, but it also suggests to me you have your own entrenched beliefs and you’ll see what you want to see to confirm them no matter what.
Because what I wrote was: “he was annoying me by calling me ‘Mistress’ when I’d told him not to. What made it even more annoying was he didn’t do it for any other reason than he wanted to annoy me: we’d established at that point we weren’t getting into a D&S relationship.”
What is it about this you find so hard to comprehend?
Sarah.
“What is it about this you find so hard to comprehend?” To be honest, logic.
Let’s say that D&s equals consensual power exchange or negotiated co-dependence. Does Male Chastity involve a consensual power exchange. It seems to. The man gives someone else to power to give and deny him orgasms and erections and as you’ve discussed it isn’t forced. The partner, to play the game, must accept that power, hence it’s exchanged. What about negotiated co-dependence? Well it takes two people to play the game and you’ve also noted the importance of ground rules. Yes, male chastity requires negotiation and co-dependence. So it seems that yes Male Chastity satisfies the definition given above of a D&s game/relationship/whatever you want to call it.
Now you can argue against the definition, perhaps it’s too broad. Heck a job is a D&s relationship according to those definitions (an it is kinda isn’t it?). There’s nothing about superiority, “always right”, humiliation or any of that stuff that commonly gets lumped in.
I suppose you could argue that male chastity in fact doesn’t involve what I outlined above and that I’d be interested in seeing.
The logic seems to flow in a pretty straight forward manner. I’m not trying to push buttons or be small minded. I just see contradictions that I don’t understand that I’m trying to.
So you’re saying you can’t comprehend that John was using the word “mistress” just to wind me up?
Submission is not the same as surrender; and a job is behaviour governed by contract. A contract must needs involve consent else it’s not a contract (by definition).
Your own desire for D&S seems to be so strong you can’t imagine any other way of doing it.
I can’t help that, and I can’t help the fact your seeming obsession doesn’t make everyone else wrong and you right.
The fact you can’t see it any other way blinds only your own eyes.
James, I agree with you.
Tom, I agree. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Come out of the closet… it is much brighter out here and the logic flows more freely.
Sarah, you would make such a wickedly delicious Domme.
Joe, so YOU can’t comprehend what “he was annoying me by calling me ‘Mistress’ when I’d told him not to. What made it even more annoying was he didn’t do it for any other reason than he wanted to annoy me: we’d established at that point we weren’t getting into a D&S relationship.” means either?
What’s so difficult?
I suspect you’ll find Mr Tom is being facetious.
As for the logic, James (and you from your previous comments here and on Vanilla Edge) is writing from a place of feeling and emotion. You simply ignore what the people involved say and tell them what their actions and motivations mean because that’s what you’ve decided they must mean. This, dear man, is classic behaviour of the dogmatist.
The implied statement, “if it involves male chastity then you know it’s a D&S relationship or you’re deceiving yourself or lying” is an untestable hypothesis and so is not logically or scientifically valid, just like saying prayer always works if you pray hard enough isn’t.
Addition And yes, I would make a superb Domme. All but for one thing. And thank you: you’ve given me something to write about tomorrow.
Sarah — Now, take all of that energy from being so annoyed by john and punish him! He was obviously asking for it. You need to a catharsis on his ass with a nice single tail. It will make you feel much better than trying to flog us with words.
Lol, I’m too tired for anything like that tonight, even if I was a Domme.
I think I’ll settle for a mutual foot-rub and an early night. It’s not all cunnilingus and barbed-wire, you know.
Oh, reality sets in…
Sigh. The first full paragraph in my second comment is a dispassionate almost academic exercise in reason and logic. A=B, B=C, therefore C=A. It’s a classic cut and dry syllogism. Either you disagree with my definition of D&s, you disagree with what I’ve stated male chastity entails, or you disagree with logical reasoning. Any of those are OK, I’m interested in knowing where the disagreement is. I mentioned nothing about John in the second comment. I don’t think it’s dogmatic, heck I lined up some areas of rational discourse for you. In both my comments I left open the door of me being wrong numerous times. I never called anyone any names or implied any negative behavior. I think I hit a nerve here and it’s time to back off.
Overall I enjoy reading your blog and look forward to future posts.
No, you haven’t hit a nerve. You’re simply wrong, that’s all.
First, you base your logic on premises you’ve invented. And they’re incorrect when applied to my relationship with John
Secondly, your use of the term “co-dependence” is laughable — you clearly don’t have a clue what it actually means.
Given these elementary mistakes, I’d say your logic is fatuous at best.
And thirdly, you conveniently ignore what I said about submission and surrender being different. But that’s what I’d expect — you’ll ignore anything that doesn’t confirm what you want to believe.
Ummm.… isn’t every premise invented, or at least man made? Show me a premise that isn’t invented and I’ll be impressed!
You are correct about my misuse of co-dependent. I read that definition in a book and didn’t thoroughly research it. I was smart enough to use an “or” in the definition of D&s and not an “and” so the whole thing doesn’t collapse if one aspect fails. The argument is hardly inane, but why again with the personal attack? Technically a logically invalid ad hominem argument; for even a fool can be right.
Yes there are some differences between surrender and submission. Surrender, in the most common use of the word happens under duress or at the barrel of a gun. It’s how wars commonly end. There is a less used definition to give up or to give (oneself) up to some influence, course, emotion, etc. (Dictionary.com) I’m guessing you’re preferring the last definition.
Submission is defined (again, Dictionary.com but for sumbit because submission essentially points back to the root of the word): to give over or yield to the power or authority of another. Now if that power or authority is consensually exchanged, tada, D&s in my mind anyways. I’m curious as to why you so strongly prefer surrender.
See isn’t this more fun than calling me a dogmatist, foolish, or comparing me to creationists? I’m not writing any of this to be mean. I suppose I’m also curious as to why that’s what lot of what I’m getting back.
:laughs:
Oh, man, my sides hurt.
The problem with using symbolic logic on human relationships is the inherent tendency to over-simplify the premise-es… the premissesses. You know, those premise-thingies.
Playing a game in which one partner *seems* to have control over another may have *elements* of D/s, but having some elements does not make it entirely D/s.
First of all, Sarah & John (and note that I’m capitalizing his name, which is grammatically correct) have agreed that they do not have a D/s *relationship.* While their sexual play has *some* elements of D/s, it is only a small facet of their entire relationship (or so I would hope).
Imagine a situation in which one of them enjoyed being restrained during sex (ropes, scarves, fetters, whatever). That has some *elements* of D/s, but it certainly doesn’t mean that their relationship *is* D/s.
Now, just because enforced male chastity satisfies some conditions of what *some* people perceive to be D/s does not mean that the people involved have the same perceptions. In fact, it would appear that neither Sarah nor John share those perceptions.
Of course, John being cheeky enough to call Sarah “Mistress” does seem like characteristically “bratty” behavior, quite expected of SAMs (Smart-Arsed Masochists), so maybe he perceives it that way after all.
Hmmm. Yes, I’ll be that’s it: Sarah is “denying” him more than orgasms, she’s denying his pleasure in believing that he is in a D/s relationship with his Domme wife. Her punishing him (with a ruined orgasm) for that is characteristic Domme behavior, too. Dang, I wonder why she can’t simply accept the label that we’re assigning to her?
James, I use surrender because that’s what it is, rather than submission. It’s the same reason you use “dog” when talking about a dog and don’t use “cat” instead.
Not only that but (as you have completely failed to understand), not only is he not submitting, but he’s not surrendering to me. It’s to his own feelings and desires. In many respects I’m just what people like to call a “facilitator”.
And the reason I’m getting annoyed with you is twofold.
First, last night I was tired and cranky.
Secondly, you are showing the most appalling bad manners by telling me, by implication, what John and I must be thinking and experiencing.
As a libertarian and a sovereign individual, I find that repugnant.
Surrender and submission are NOT like dog and cat, at least a thesaurus doesn’t list dog and cat as synonyms. It’s more like the difference between roma tomatoes and heirloom, you can buy the wrong ones and the recipe will still turn out fine.
Saying you’re just a facilitator makes it sound here like you’re almost a passive participant with no real interest. I’ll say I may be wrong because heaven forbid I imply anything about anyone but most of what you’ve written shows you have quite a passion for this.
“Secondly, you are showing the most appalling bad manners by telling me, by implication, what John and I must be thinking and experiencing.
As a libertarian and a sovereign individual, I find that repugnant.”
This is fucking retarded. There’s some bad manners for you. EVERYONE views and comprehends the world through their own reality filters. The implication is what you MIGHT be feeling/experiencing, not must. I left open the opportunities for *civil* discourse and was repeated skewered and I never took the bait. Even now I’m calling your statement fucking retarded, not you personally.
Which is actually more leeway than I’ve been given (talk about bad manners!). Your responses were disproportionately mean and personal. Your rational for this behavior is laughable. You wouldn’t be able to order fish and chips with mushy peas if you got that pissed every time someone tried to infer your motivation for an action. Here’s a quid’s worth of free advice back from my pot smoking days: If you look around and everyone is acting really weird; they’re not, you are.
Kudos to you if this passes your mod filter. Of course as a libertarian you should be all about free speech and put it through!
Actually, Jamie, this isn’t a free-speech issue. I own this blog. I pay for it. Whether or not I let you post has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Once more you show your complete and utter ignorance.
Your comments about how everyone else is acting are also fucking retarded, to use your own phrase. Not so long ago everyone believed the Earth was flat. Presumably they must have been right and we’re now all weird and wrong. Truth is not decided by majority opinion. Your not understanding that surprises me not at all, since you show your love of dogma and ideology in everything else you write.
You are incapable of seeing my relationship with John through any filter other than your desire for submission. Submission and surrender are very different (clue: two words being listed in a book as synonyms does not make them mean exactly the same thing). Moreover, surrender to his own feelings and desires and submission to me are a world apart.
Again, you ignore what I said about that because you can’t see beyond your own desires.
Fact: we are not in a D&S relationships and it forms no part of it. If you think otherwise you are wrong, completely and objectively. End of story.
P.S. Your inferring our reasons for actions aren’t the problem. The problem is you won’t listen to my answer and instead make up your own.
Now we are getting somewhere!
“Not so long ago everyone believed the Earth was flat. Presumably they must have been right and we’re now all weird and wrong. Truth is not decided by majority opinion. ”
An yet we say the sun sets and rises despite knowing damn well it’s not moving in relation to us! Truth isn’t determined by majority, language is. According to Wittgenstein language is owned and defined by it’s practitioners.
“Moreover, surrender to his own feelings and desires and submission to me are a world apart.”
But to the rest of the world it’s splitting hairs at best.
The one thing I’ve gleaned is that whether it is or isn’t the case is almost irrelevant, *and completely besides that*, you really, Really, REALLY detest the idea John submitting to you. You are willing to do some interesting and mental and lingual gymnastics to avoid that at all costs. The rest (or at least majority from what I’ve seen) of the male chastity community doesn’t seem to share this aversion with you. That’s why our behaviors seem so weird or even offensive to each other.
You can stop claiming that I’m blinded by dogma/desires/whatever. It really isn’t the case. It’s an incorrect inference on your part.
Wow, I can’t believe what I’m reading.
I know I’ve been teasing Sarah about her Mistress-ish behavior, but let me be serious for a moment.
*Every* relationship carries the potential for D/s in the sense that elements are always present; the problem is in our perception of those elements as in defining them part of the dynamic, or as in acceptin ghtem as part of any “normal” (fsv of normal) relationship.
When I carry in the groceries for Mrs. Edge, I do so because I know it makes her life a little easier. Oh,and because I’m stronger. It’s not because she exerts some control over me. Yet, in some D/s relationships, fetching and carrying are an essential part of the relationship.
James, I think that Sarah is getting fed up with people — mainly men — trying to explain to her what she feels (or might feel), even after she has been clear right from the start that she does *not* consider her relationship to be D/s.
I was reading a web board recently, when the subject came up about using strap-ons. The woman writer was concerned that her bf wanted her to use one on him; she thought it meant that he was secretly gay. Worse, a bunch of women jumped in to support that supposition. Having read a lot of other stories about this, I understand that it’s not a gay thing at all. Yet, if that woman’s bf found himself in a room with the commenters, they would be doing pretty much what other people are doing to Sarah — that is, making an assumption about his sexuality that is totally unwarranted.
I think that Sarah has been doing a good job in trying not to be *too* snarky with the number of people who have been making their own assumptions.
Jamie, you quite clearly said, “If you look around and everyone is acting really weird; they’re not, you are.”.
I have demonstrated this is objectively wrong. Do you deny this?
Then you say: “But to the rest of the world it’s splitting hairs at best”.
Two things here: you’ve consulted them all have you? And they elected you as spokesman?
No, to both of those. What’s more, no matter how many people say they think they’re the same, they are quite clearly different in objective terms (another clue: John’s emotions are not me. What don’t you understand about this?).
As I said, you’re an ideologue and you want to stick your labels wherever you can. You seem to be saying that no matter what we say you think John’s submitting. Again, classic dogma. No matter what John or I tell you is actually happening you keep bleating on about it and then try such specious arguments as “well, everyone else thinks the same”. Now THAT is retarded, Jamie. Stick to what you DO know: your OWN mind.
BTW, you seem to have gone very quiet about your “free speech” crack. Funny how you gloss over your ignorance when it’s exposed, isn’t it?
Please don’t publish that, it’s just a comment.
I love your blog, it’s just all the real life about chastity (it’s fun, it’s a game … if you don’t like, don’t do it …) without the usual bullshit on D&S and world domination by woman.
Please, don’t waste your blog answering to basic and dirty trolls (don’t get me wrong, it’s your blog not mine, but I hate to see you having to justify yourself to such crappy people as James).
Answering to those people, just let them publish their rubbish and you’ll attract more and more … until you get tired and close this blog.
Then, I’ll be upset.
““If you look around and everyone is acting really weird; they’re not, you are.”.
I have demonstrated this is objectively wrong. Do you deny this?”
Yes I deny it. Majority doesn’t determine truth but it can determine appropriate behavior (and language definitions). Which is what I stated. For example if every car seems to be coming right at you, you’re probably in the wrong lane, not walking on the appropriate pathway, etc. Likewise you can’t go into a café, ask for a bathtub and expect to get a iced skim latte.
I’m not the arbiter of truth for the English language but the dictionary and thesarus are and they seem to think that surrender and submission are “close enough” to by synonyms. Let’s do a mental experiment. If you asked key holders “Would you rather your partner surrender to their own feelings for male chastity (or insert however you want to phase it) or give you the power and authority to chastise them which they then submit to?” Well, what do you think the response would be?
I’ve never met John, I don’t even know that he exists, heck can anyone *prove* we’re not all in alien pods plugged into the Matrix? At some point we have to assume some things to be true.
Sarah and John are engaged in a behavior that, as Tom’s pointed out and not been skewered for, can be framed as D&s whether or not it’s practitioners believe it to be. Doing so is not an evil plot to push some agenda on Sarah and John, it’s how the behavior is seen by the majority of people that also do the same thing (based on limited personal anecdotal observation).
I do know that people don’t admit all of their motivations to themselves much less their partners. I’m not saying this is the case in this particular instance, just stating the fact and pointing out the *possibility* that there *may* be more layers to the onion. There also may not be. I don’t know.
The crack about free speech was just a ploy to try and get you to post that comment. I knew it’s fallacy but used it anyways for its persuasive value.
Hey, you fight dirty too! (and I’m perfectly ok with that)
You’re not moderated, James. If you had have been I’d have posted it regardless of your free-speech comment, since it’s clearly irrelevant.
And James, since you clearly believe opinion establishes truth, there’s no point in debating it with you — you live in your own world of make-believe and nothing can reach you.
I pity you. Really, I do.
I do not think opinion establishes truth, just appropriate behavior. Millions of people believing god walked the earth 2000 years ago doesn’t make it true. However, running into mass and telling everyone so would be inappropriate.
Look, I think I’ve found our problem. I think when it comes to describing male chastity we are literally speaking different languages. It’s OK! I think I’m speaking the more commonly accepted dialect, but only time will tell. This assumption leads me to think that you are going to encounter this frustration over and over again. You are an anomaly from my limited observations and my comments were meant to explore that anomaly. Others that frustrate you, previously and yet to come, probably feel the same way: interested. Once again, time will tell. This isn’t personal, I hold no grudge, if you want to, that’s your bag. If we can’t agree on definitions, that’s fine but there’s nothing more to do other than stick our tounges out, say “Nyaa!” and move on.
Yes the free speech quip was completely irrelevant, just like all of your attempts to diminish my character and then tie my arguments you your diminished version of me.
Oh, and if one can see past the belittlement, you are interesting. It is quite distracting though.
James, I think you’re a jerk. Other people here seem to agree with me (more than seem to agree with you).
By your own logic, that opinion defines truth, it seems you must in fact be a jerk.
Can’t argue with that, personally.
Well then, my sincerest apologies. I’ve attempted to have an enlightening discussion for all parties and I suppose it’s not possible at this time for reasons I fail to comprehend. There’s no hate in my heart about it. Shrug, everybody’s different, thankfully. I can’t even say nice things without being attacked … so good bye and good luck!
Indeed. It’s really fucking annoying when someone keeps repeating the same old thing to you without paying attention to what you’re actually saying, isn’t it?
Perhaps you’ve learned a lesson in that, James.
I’m sorry, I have no fuel for your fire. I’ve quit this game.
Let’s look at this from the opposite point of view.
Back when I started blogging, I wrote a post on “Stealth” submission, i.e., the idea that if your wife is not an active domme, then you should try to get her into the mindset by doing submissivy things for her — getting coffee, massaging her feet, washing her car, doing the laundry. I discovered at least one web group that seemed devoted to just this concept.
They seemed like the saddest bunch of guys I’ve ever run into. Their posts were full of things like “I think she’s getting it — last week we went shopping and I held her purse while she tried on 3 dresses” or “I’ve been bringing her coffee every morning, and when I fortgot yesterday, she actually seemed a little peeved.” Such notes were greeted with support and even enthusiasm from the other men.
Please.
Were these men in a D/s relationship? While they desperately wanted to believe so, I think it would be stretching the definition to agree.
Were these men “subs”? Well, while they displayed some elements of submissivyness (yes, I often make up my own words), I imagine that if you asked anyone not privy to their web forums, they would say that they are simply being nice, attentive husbands.
I actually cringed when I read that, Tom.
In any normal population of women, some of them are going to be dominant. Most of them are not, assuming it follows a normal distribution (a fair bet).
In my experience, when a man gets like that women get very tetchy. Sometimes the woman starts it off by being shrewish herself and goading him into supplicating simply by force of bitchiness.
On the face of it, this is what she wants, but it’s definitely not what she needs. So she gets irritated with him and treats him worse. So he supplicates more… and she treats him worse… and round and round it goes.
I, personally, love it that I can’t do that with John. If I try my shit-tests he calls bullshit on me. And he’ll do it anywhere, too. Like most women of my experience, I’ll even try it on in public, just like a child, assuming he won’t do it for fear of embarrassment. No such luck.
Again, perhaps not all women are like this, but many, perhaps most, of us are to one degree or another.
Even if I could find a submissive male attractive long enough to fuck him, I’d very soon be involved in the kind of nasty, dark and unpleasant relationship I can well do without.
Of course, none of this means anything to the Chastity Taliban who have their own little Scripture that tells them any woman engaging in male chastity must be a domme and her husband must be submissive, simply because a lot of very loud and submission-obsessed people say so.
Oh for a “Bull” to try and humiliate John. We could post the ensuing bare-handed slaughter on YouTube for the likes of Jolly James to watch.
Silence is golden, or is it deafening? Maybe it’s really loud gold.
So, James, you’ve NOT quit the game, after all?
Wow! That was an interesting exchange of vocal gunfire. Doms and Subs. What the heck, I’ll throw in my 2 cents worth. Perhaps John is the Dominant one here and Sarah is the Submissive.
John came up with the idea. John told Sarah what he wanted. John convinced Sarah to go along with it and Sarah meekly complied. How can you call Sarah a Dom or a Mistress when she is following John’s desires?
Oops. That was almost a nickel’s worth. I ‘bes git back into my foxhole while there’s still a cease fire.
Pete, you are probably not far wrong with that one. I definitely prefer a male-led relationship in the same way most women seem to (that is, I find assertive, strong, confident alpha-males attractive and go weak at the knees when I’m in their presence), and I have a pronounced submissive streak in the bedroom.
And John is most definitely Alpha, and he can be delicously cruel in bed (he’s as strong as an ox and randy as a sex-crazed weasel, so pinning me to the bed and fucking me blind is no trouble… not that I’m complaining. The only thing is, he doesn’t get to orgasm when he does).
I’m not what you’d call meek, by any stretch of the imagination; and if I didn’t want to play with male chastity, I wouldn’t, and John wouldn’t want me to or try to make me. What Todd said was quite illuminating. Maybe I ought to be a professional domme so it doesn’t matter I wouldn’t want a relationship with a submissive man, lol.
I must say this is the best exchange I’ve seen a long time…makes me even more happy I found your blog Sarah. You are a fascinating woman! James, you are a mensch-not a jerk.
Sarah, I know this will sound flip and certainly unattractive, but each time I read your comments my submissive buttons were being pushed like crazy. Thankfully, my CB6000s kept everything in check.
Wonderful blog. Thank you Mistress. (sorry)
Lol, “mistress”. You numpty!
I ought to tie you down and whip you for that.
Hi Sarah,
I think ultimately since you say what you and John do does not involve D/s we have to accept that as so. Either that or assume you are deceiving us, are in denial. Or, and I think this is probably the case for myself, that we are using words differently and have very different views of what dominance and submission are and are about.
Certainly much of what you have written suggests to me that you and I have a fundamentally different usage of terms like D/s, dominance, submission, authority, etc.
When C and I play chastity games we use a game plan that is fundamentally of my designing although we refine it by mutual discussion. There are elements of chance, the toss of a coin, the roll of a dice, an unpredictable real world event, involved. Etc.
Your and John’s approach, from what you have written, is quite different. To me it appears that it is an activity limited D/s. That is in terms of the sexual side of your relationship you are in the dominant position and John submits but it is limited to the erotic and sexual. That however is using my terminology and since I’ve already suggested we have different perspectives of what dominance and submission are I am sure it is not how you would chose to describe it. The words clearly seem to mean different things to us.
I’m still curious, ever curious, to understand others perspectives. So, a thought experiment. Suppose you and John wished to engage in D/s chastity play, as opposed to the “vanilla” non-D/s chastity play that you do. What are the minimum changes in the rules of the game, so to speak, that would be required to make your chastity play a D/s activity?
Knowing that may help us all understand and appreciate you position better.
Michael
Something you’ve missed, Michael, and which idiot-James ignored despite my drawing his attention to it, is surrender to his own feelings and desires is completely different from submission to me. Allowing himself to let go and be dominated by his own sensations is not the same as being subject to my will.
That James can’t or won’t see how these are different just shows what a miserable small-minded dick he is. I have no doubt he’s a sub, but my guess is he’s a nasty controlling one who probably needs a real domme to lick him into shape. He showed quite clearly how duplicitous he is by trying to manipulate me into posting a comment he thought I’d block. That’s exactly the kind of sly and underhanded behaviour of a bottom-topping sub.
Anyway, even if we have different ideas about what D&S does or not entail, this distinction alone — between surrender and submission — serves to show we don’t do the D&S thing as perceived by most people: man sees woman; man falls to knees and promises to obey.
I don’t think we necessarily have different understandings of D&S at all. I think we’re probably alinged pretty much 99%, given the natural blurring of understanding you always get with humans and natural language.
I think the problem is people won’t — not can’t — simply won’t see things through anything but the filter of their own desires.
It’s interesting how the women seem to have no problem understanding this. Nor does Tom.
It’s interesting how Tom isn’t a sub.
It’s interesting how it seems most men reading and commenting on this blog are submissive men.
It’s interesting how they seem to be the ones who are unable to understand the difference.
Idiot James made the fundamental error of assuming the majority is correct, just because they are a majority. But consider: if the majority is biased in the same way, if their thinking is warped by the same flaw, then you’d expect to get a flawed conclusion.
Just something to think about.
And if we wanted to engage in D&S chastity play? I don’t really understand the question. I personally don’t see how you can distinguish between D&S and non-D&S chastity play since chastity is describing something that’s chiefly a physcial state, whereas D&S is more of an emotional one.
Yes, D&S can (and usually does) have chastity within it, but the chastity per se is what we might call “D&S neutral”.
It’s a bit like saying “sandwich butter as opposed to muuffin butter”. Butter’s butter whatever bakery product you spread it on.
Sarah,
You are right in that most of the men commenting on this blog seem to be submissive (Tom being the well known exception!) But I wouldn’t be so sure of those who read your blog and find it helpful and inspiring (to find a balanced relationship using MC). It’s comforting that others ‘play the game’ who are a bit more balanced. In fact, all points all along the curve are okay — that’s probably more probable.
This blog, your helpful hints, and perhaps the book, seem to be pointed down the middle of the fairway, which could do wonders for bringing this topic out in the sun. I’m still intrigued — how many of us (the non-submissive types) using MC in small batches, or all the time, are “out there”?
Keep posting!
btb
Oh, I will. No doubt of that.
I have no idea how common it is, but every woman who’s ever teased a man has at least cracked open the door and looked in.
I suspect many more would take a step forwards than actually do if only there were more blogs like this one about (no modesty, false or otherwise, here, you’ll note
).
Hi Sarah,
Many thanks for the answer; we got there in the end. Yes, if the emotions you are experiencing are not those of dominance and submission then it is not D/s regardless of how the behaviour looks or sounds.
Also thanks for the clarification of how you were using the word surrender in respect of John’s surrender.
Michael
“If the emotions you are experiencing are not those of dominance and submission then it is not D/s regardless of how the behaviour looks or sounds
How superlatively well put. Thank you.
You know, I’ve been writing for several years, and I can’t remember anybody arguing with me about my being (or not) submissive. Nobody has told me what I am probably thinking, nor has anyone taken any effort to point out how my relationship is something other than what I claim it to be.
Why is that, do you think?
Because, darling, they don’t fantasise about you in leather wielding a whip?
They WANT me to be a Domme. I’d be their worst nighmare and most delicious fantasy come true.
Miaow.
Because, darling, they don’t fantasise about you in leather wielding a whip?
:stamps foot peevishly:
Dammit, I *could* do that, if I wanted to.
Heh — a dom in chastity? It would blow their minds..
Not to mention a hole in their underpants…
Great post and great blog. I totally agree with your desire to ‘do things’ your own way regardless if they conform to those rules that some think lord over all things fetish/kink related. I have been told via online ‘experts’ that everything I have ever done, felt, thought was arong and I am not a “TRUE” (insert here„„Domme, Mistress, Sadist, Etcist) whatever.
More power to you Sarah.
Thank you, Vanessa.
Although we’re looking at it in isolation here, it’s actually a fairly widespread human trait — it seems to me to be perhaps related to the notion of “in group” and “out group”.
Any time anyone does something different from the “norm” in a particular activity or endeavour, there is a storm of derision and ridicule wholly disproportionate to any boat-rocking they’ve done.
And really, why do people care so much? It’s irrational. Why should anyone else care what I say about, say, forced male chastity being a myth, when they can simply not read anything I write and continue to prowl the forums where the lie is held as Sacred Truth?
Why do I even care about exposing the lies? There are lots of reasons, as I’ve written, but really, none of them make a bugger’s worth of difference in the grand scheme of things.
Good morning Sarah,
I thoroughly enjoy reading your blog and look forward to each new post!
Of late, there has been a lot of discussion regarding your role in y’alls journey into the male chastity lifestyle. Labels, such as mistress and dom have been tossed like confetti. However, I see a blooming romance akin to the court of King Arthur, where Sir Lancelot was smitten by Queen Guinevere, and would do anything for her.
John is your Knight(soon to be in shining armor[pun intended]), and you already are his Queen Sarah. As Queen, you sent him on a quest that will take six months to complete at which point he will receive his reward. Sir John already knows that after the current task is completed there is yet another quest that would require a full year to complete.
Its a love story. A modern day real life romance. Life is short, enjoy it to the fullest!