Spontaneity and a willingness to experiment, improvise, and try new things are qualities I expect from a woman (and offer myself). I don't demand perfect obedience, but I want to see the desire to obey. Unless you sometimes do things for me that you don't enjoy, it's not the sort of submission I want.
I'd rather inflict mild pain on a woman who feels it than go heavy with a painslut. Among the things I love are breast torture, canes and belts, receiving sexual service, using my hands to inflict punishment, and leaving temporary marks. It'd be an unusual woman who didn't like most of that who'd be interested in (or interest) me. Things I enjoy but don't expect from every woman are edgy activities like humiliation, objectification, and the desire to push her limits. If you can show me something new and interesting, even if I don't particularly like it, that might be the most attractive quality a submissive woman could offer me.
Physical appearance is important, but standard beauty is not. Often some aspect of a woman's appearance appeals to me even if she's not conventionally attractive.
12/1/2009 6:21:28 AM
Today I tweaked my interests.
I don't really "Live for" breast play, canes, crops, and whips (I don't even care much for crops), but that's the highest rating, so I chose it.
Things I "Love" and things I "Live for" are about the same to me in evaluating a woman. She doesn't have to want them all, but I'd hope she'd want at least half of them, and I'd expect her to be willing to discuss and consider any of them. I could be very happy with just all the "Loves".
The things I'm "Curious" about, I no longer mark as a "Beginner". I figure not having much experience is average for someone who's curious.
I'll have more to say soon.
3/23/2009 7:31:36 AM
Some things you tell a woman to do and expect it done; other things, you don't even ask. [EDIT: Looking back, this isn't clear. Do I mean there are things you just don't ask a woman to do (in the case of almost all women, the answer is "Yes")? Or do I mean there are things to do with a woman without asking (in the case of women I'm interested in, the answer is "Yes")? I meant the first, to draw a contrast between what you can command and what you can't, and I'd rework the way I said it here, if I were writing this again today.]
For bdsm activities, this is relatively simple: Negotiate, define limits, spend some social time. Once that's done, whether in a first meeting or after a long series of encounters, it's time to work.
Outside bdsm, though, it's harder.
If one person smokes, that can be a killer, whether it's the dominant or the submissive who smokes. Many relationships get past that, and sometimes it ends a smoking habit.I'll call that a happy ending.
Smoking isn't an ethical question. That's why it's so often resolved, ignored, or gotten past.
What about behavior that one thinks is wrong?
Some dominants, masters, and owners are willing to take on a woman who believes they're wrong about something. Such women make enjoyable objects for them to torment.
"Maybe," he thinks, "I can make her change her mind."
Or "Maybe," he thinks, "I'll make her endure feeling bad about this for a long time."
Or "Maybe," he thinks, "I'll enjoy watching her do something she believes is wrong, for me."
All those have an appeal. They also push into progressively darker emotional territory.
In a full-time or committed relationship, a submissive will almost certainly become, at the least, more tolerant of those things she believes are wrong in her dominant. She may come to share them. This is not so very different from the process by which we train a submissive to soften her limits and give herself fully to us. It's a risk a submissive should consider before M/s or 24/7.
In a more casual relationship, the risk is not so great. There, the process of stretching the submissive is more focused on kink and spills over less into straight life.
An interesting case is when the dominant is prejudiced and the submissive finds that to be wrong. That sounds simple: The submissive is likely to pick up those prejudices over time.
What, though, if the prejudice is similar to kink?
I make a good faith effort in my life to not be prejudiced. However, there are many abusive names for women that I might use in private or during a session, but that I would never use in public. I'm okay with the ethics of that. I might use homophobic language to her during a session, and I'm okay with that. My discomfort starts to rise when race enters the picture.
And yet, if a woman who was black approached me and wanted to do race-based play, I might well say yes, even though it's not something I would ever seek out.
Sometimes I thnk ethics is the kinkiest thing in the world.
3/19/2009 10:17:51 AM
I've thought enough about training for a while. At least, I've done enough thinking out loud.
Now, a question for my readers: What do other dominant men write in their journals on this site? I read journals from submissive women, and I have some idea what topics they write about. (Topic #1: The cluelessness of so many men on this site.) I don't often read dominants' journals, so I don't know what they write about. So: What do you read in those journals?
3/18/2009 6:33:41 AM
Why is training such an issue to me now?
First, it matches both what I desire and what I'm able to honestly offer. I want more than casual play, and I am not offering a permanent or long-term commitment. Training is a middle ground.
Second, I often see dominants called "trainers" or "protectors" and, while I'm sure some of those who make those claims are both sincere and competent, I'm certain quite a few are lacking one or both of those qualities. If I knew which ones, I'd call the Kinky Kops--but they don't exist. To improve the quality of training, my first act is to become a quality trainer.
(Submissives have a role in this, too, when they talk among themselves about who screwed them over and who's the real deal, who's a thorny flower and who's a stinkweed.)
Third, I think there's often confusion (deliberate, sometimes) about the interaction of training and protection. Protection is often a racket, a dominant taking a submissive on the pretext of protecting her. Such submissives are usually looking for a long-term commitment. There's a conflict of interest between the protector and the submissive, dependent on his level of integrity.
I think it's better to take submissives into training. It leaves her emotionally open but submissively engaged, freer to get the relationship she needs without being in a frenzy to find an owner. It's got explicit goals and time limitations. It's focused on developing some characteristic the submissive desires, or possibly something the dominant believes she needs. Finally, it's a form of D/s.
I'm going to say that again: Training is a form of D/s.
Why is that so important?
Because it's honest to say that, in a way that much protection talk is not. If I'm engaging myself in training a woman, that's a form of dominating her. (This is not so true of professional training, and professional training is not what I'm talking about.) For her, it's submission, not a holding pattern or something for her to do in the meantime. It's real, even if it's not everything.
3/17/2009 5:02:39 AM
What does it mean to be a trainer?
Dominants want submissives to perform to the dominant's pleasure. Sometimes we have to teach them what we mean. This can happen in any D/s encounter as simply as, "Stop that. Do this."
Is that training? I don't think so. It's teaching and it's learning, but it's not training.
Training is what happens when a dominant has a specific set of goals in mind for a submissive and has a plan for making her fulfill those goals to his satisfaction.
For that to happen, here's what's needed:
* A goal. The dominant has to know what change he wants in the submissive.
* A plan. The dominant has to know how to make that change in the submissive happen.
* A schedule. The dominant has to set a formal structure for the submissive to inhabit.
Those three things are essential (have you ever had a great teacher who didn't use them?) but they're not obvious to everyone. Things which are obvious and necessary, I've left out for now.
The other big issue is informed consent. With some submissives, any sort of training would be a matter of negotiation. It might be initiated by the submissive to develop desires and abilities she doesn't yet have. With slaves, the level of explicit consent could be lower, depending on just how slavish she is. In some cases, it's just one more thing you make her do. Talking would ruin it.
So how much information should a dominant give to get the submissive's consent?
I've never felt the need to ask a woman who said she only liked spankings for consent to make her want the paddle, the flogger, the belt, the cane, the whip. Consent comes after, when it's time to start using it on her. But what if the whip is a hard limit for her? Is it wrong to coax her to want it? What if you want her to be whipped by another as you watch? Whipped as she services you?
(I'll give the reader a moment to fan herself.)
This is what goes into that decision: How far a jump you want the woman to make, how different a place you want her to land, and how much consent she's handed over to you.
Why is this so important to me right now? I'll save that for my next entry.