Men claim to want to be slaves to women. I truly understand their need, and I am among them. I want to be a slave to a woman. The problem is when, after cleaning toilets, vacuuming floor, picking up kitty and doggie poop, we run out of kinky stuff. The woman to whom we wish to be a slave is sipping her beverage watching some mindless TV show ignores us and we are bored. We just spent a day on drudgery, and there is no hint or promise of sexual joy.
That is slavery.
Sex slavery is different. You are called upon your favorite kink to do or not do whatever you like. If you like chastity, you are prevented from orgasming. If you like sexuality or homosexuality, you are prevented from all that or forced to do it. You are put into a scenario that enhances your needs and either helps or prevents you from achieving them.
The question is, “Who is going to do that for you and why?” Is she or he doing it to satisfy your kinky sexual needs, or to satisfy his or her kinky sexual needs?
Few men as highly sexed as I would refuse to be a sex slave at least from time to time. After a day or so of getting over the result of masturbation we all are ready to serve a woman, or even a man, to any extent. The more kinky it is, the more we are ready. Then we orgasm, and the urge is reset. A never-ending cycle.
Hell, when I am horny I am willing to suck a dick. Then I get my things off, and dismiss it as some frigging homosexual fantasy, whatever. About the woman, I could still do it but not being fully compliant with the implications as in her being in estrus. So, when in the sex slave mode, I am willing to do almost anything. Well, maybe. I look at a woman and say, I could be her slave. But the thing is, being a slave is more demanding than my idea of being a sex slave when I am horny. I don’t really know what a slave would be unless I were to get into lawyesrism. I know damn well what being a sex slave is: to serve her sexually no matter the circumstances. But whoa! That is a wide open mine field to tread Yes, I am ready, but not after I have just orgasmed.
I hate to be so fickle. I would love to have MW hold me to my promise to do … you know, all that stuff. That is, until I orgasm. Then it is different.
Would somebody please take control of my brain and say, “Having just orgasmed has nothing to do with how you feel. This is what you will do, and you have nothing to say about it.” That is how I feel in general except after you-know-what.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Law Enforcement
I have been challenged on my blog space about my sporting a gun in a civil scenario. There is a difference between being a victim and being a victor. There is a difference between the average denizen of the state, legal or illegal, and the rest of us.
If you have not experienced this, your time is coming: some criminal will try to do a bad thing to you, and you will not like it. This is the product of living in society. It goes way back to biblical times. When some scumbag wants your money, it’s nothing personal; you just happen to be a convenience to the scumbag.
So, “Who do you call?” as they said in “Ghost Busters.” The immediate problem is that we are not there on the scene to stop the bad guy. We have tried it, and it is not possible. The next best thing is for you to call 911. We respond, but it may take time. Usually it is too late to stop a bad situation, but we are there eventually to mop up the scene.
We, the police, are here to show presence, and to some extent deter crime. But we cannot prevent crime. Some people resent our presence, but that is their problem. The best we can do is to catch the perpetrator after the crime and turn him over to the courts for just disposition.
If you never do anything that would justify someone calling 911, then you should consider us the good guys, for we don’t go looking for schmucks to arrest even when they deserve incarceration. We serve legal warrants rightfully issued by judges. If you are an average citizen, and we don't catch you in a crive, you have nothing to fear from us. You should actually feel good seeing us and be around us. We serve and we protect you. On the other hand, if you are a criminal, we will get you, and we don’t care how you feel about us. This is not politically correct, but we really don’t give a shit. We will see you in handcuffs. Then you can deal with Bubba who wants to explore your nether regions during the lights-off hours. It comes with your chosen territory.
If you have not experienced this, your time is coming: some criminal will try to do a bad thing to you, and you will not like it. This is the product of living in society. It goes way back to biblical times. When some scumbag wants your money, it’s nothing personal; you just happen to be a convenience to the scumbag.
So, “Who do you call?” as they said in “Ghost Busters.” The immediate problem is that we are not there on the scene to stop the bad guy. We have tried it, and it is not possible. The next best thing is for you to call 911. We respond, but it may take time. Usually it is too late to stop a bad situation, but we are there eventually to mop up the scene.
We, the police, are here to show presence, and to some extent deter crime. But we cannot prevent crime. Some people resent our presence, but that is their problem. The best we can do is to catch the perpetrator after the crime and turn him over to the courts for just disposition.
If you never do anything that would justify someone calling 911, then you should consider us the good guys, for we don’t go looking for schmucks to arrest even when they deserve incarceration. We serve legal warrants rightfully issued by judges. If you are an average citizen, and we don't catch you in a crive, you have nothing to fear from us. You should actually feel good seeing us and be around us. We serve and we protect you. On the other hand, if you are a criminal, we will get you, and we don’t care how you feel about us. This is not politically correct, but we really don’t give a shit. We will see you in handcuffs. Then you can deal with Bubba who wants to explore your nether regions during the lights-off hours. It comes with your chosen territory.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Homosexual Marriage
Homosexuality in general, when not in my face, is OK with me .We all are to some degree homosexual, so I will not blame or ostracize anyone who is not "truly heterosexual" what the hell ever that may be.
I have, however, a problem with “gay pride” and when homosexuals try to make special laws to favor their sexual preferences. Let’s say, that I am a kleptomaniac, and I am proud of it. Should I have laws enacted to prefer me as such? I rest my friggin’ case. If you bring up the argument of "homosexuality is not a preference but ingrained", give me a damn break. I am highly sexual, and I admit that it came with my being from way back. But I don't go around flaunting it or forcing it on others because "I can't help it". I also don't ask the government to give me special dispensation to accommodate my proclevity to prefer my sexual preferences. Dammit, I control my own behavior whether it is sucking a cock or licking a pussy. I go with what is reasonable, and I don't need the state to support my preference. You do your thing, and I will do mine without intruding on your space!
My definition of marriage in the traditional sense is between a man and a woman, whether they are heterosexual or to any degree homosexual. The reason for this is a religious basis. I am not religious, but I respect the belief and dedication of any religious person as long as it is not destructive or restrictive of my own beliefs. For example, if this religious person wants to blow me up because I am not of his faith, I will blow him away without respect to his so-called religion.
Getting back to the marriage issue I think that it is a non-issue. The definition of marriage is as old as mankind. It goes back to Adam and Eve in whatever language or religion. The problem with this came up when the state got into the act. There was a good reason for that, but it was wrong from the conception. The good part is trying to define a lawful state with respect to shared property, shared responsibility for each other and children, and ultimately, inheritance. The thing that is wrong with this is the definition of marriage itself. Marriage is a religious assumption, demonstrated over the years by the sanctions of priests, and other religious leaders. It is a promise to take care of and to serve only each other under God, whatever that god may be. This at some point should have been separated from a state-approved and sanctioned contract, which I call a “civil union”.
A civil union can and should be allowed between and among two or more people or such. The legality can be defined by the friggin’ lawyers to withstand the court’s probes, and should have nothing to do with religious or personal promises that a real marriage represents. Under a civil union, a man should be able to marry a woman, a man, or any number of such, including animals or inanimate objects. I really don’t give a rat's ass about what some man or woman wants to do along these lines as long as they keep it out of my life. This would negate the debate and the issue over the constitutionality of homosexual marriage and the other stuff, and keep it out of the courts.
Well, people have their heads up their asses, so this is not going to happen the way I see it. Stupidity has no bounds. The judge who negated the ballot initiative Proposition 8 in California has his own agenda describing a marriage between a man and a woman as homophobic. Yes, he is self-admitted homosexual, but that is not why he should be booted. Any homosexual is as smart or intelligent as a heterosexual. This guy has an agenda and he uses his position to undo what others in the majority deem proper. That is why he should be booted.
I have, however, a problem with “gay pride” and when homosexuals try to make special laws to favor their sexual preferences. Let’s say, that I am a kleptomaniac, and I am proud of it. Should I have laws enacted to prefer me as such? I rest my friggin’ case. If you bring up the argument of "homosexuality is not a preference but ingrained", give me a damn break. I am highly sexual, and I admit that it came with my being from way back. But I don't go around flaunting it or forcing it on others because "I can't help it". I also don't ask the government to give me special dispensation to accommodate my proclevity to prefer my sexual preferences. Dammit, I control my own behavior whether it is sucking a cock or licking a pussy. I go with what is reasonable, and I don't need the state to support my preference. You do your thing, and I will do mine without intruding on your space!
My definition of marriage in the traditional sense is between a man and a woman, whether they are heterosexual or to any degree homosexual. The reason for this is a religious basis. I am not religious, but I respect the belief and dedication of any religious person as long as it is not destructive or restrictive of my own beliefs. For example, if this religious person wants to blow me up because I am not of his faith, I will blow him away without respect to his so-called religion.
Getting back to the marriage issue I think that it is a non-issue. The definition of marriage is as old as mankind. It goes back to Adam and Eve in whatever language or religion. The problem with this came up when the state got into the act. There was a good reason for that, but it was wrong from the conception. The good part is trying to define a lawful state with respect to shared property, shared responsibility for each other and children, and ultimately, inheritance. The thing that is wrong with this is the definition of marriage itself. Marriage is a religious assumption, demonstrated over the years by the sanctions of priests, and other religious leaders. It is a promise to take care of and to serve only each other under God, whatever that god may be. This at some point should have been separated from a state-approved and sanctioned contract, which I call a “civil union”.
A civil union can and should be allowed between and among two or more people or such. The legality can be defined by the friggin’ lawyers to withstand the court’s probes, and should have nothing to do with religious or personal promises that a real marriage represents. Under a civil union, a man should be able to marry a woman, a man, or any number of such, including animals or inanimate objects. I really don’t give a rat's ass about what some man or woman wants to do along these lines as long as they keep it out of my life. This would negate the debate and the issue over the constitutionality of homosexual marriage and the other stuff, and keep it out of the courts.
Well, people have their heads up their asses, so this is not going to happen the way I see it. Stupidity has no bounds. The judge who negated the ballot initiative Proposition 8 in California has his own agenda describing a marriage between a man and a woman as homophobic. Yes, he is self-admitted homosexual, but that is not why he should be booted. Any homosexual is as smart or intelligent as a heterosexual. This guy has an agenda and he uses his position to undo what others in the majority deem proper. That is why he should be booted.
What Comes Around Goes Around
I find it funny and somewhat pathetic to read about someone’s self-described Female Led Relationship versus the vanilla version. The question is, "What is the difference?"
Let’s go back to what used to be called the vanilla relationship where a man is “henpecked”. Some poor schmuck would be controlled by his wife’s in-his-face insensitive behavior. She would humiliate him before friends, relatives, and strangers just because she was a friggin’ bitch and could get away with it and he did not have the balls to set her straight.
So now, henpecked is not only a misnomer but politically incorrect, even insulting to the woman who is doing the henpecking. Now she is in charge, and he is in her charge. Now she can be in-his-face and insensitive, and humiliate him to any extent in front of anyone. But this is good, because this is now a Female Led Relationship, and the rules are set: she is in charge, she can do anything, and he is to comply with whatever she decides. He is just a dolt who is not allowed to make a decision because she is the smart and intelligent one in the relationship.
Has anything changed other than the perception of the relationship?
Let’s go back to what used to be called the vanilla relationship where a man is “henpecked”. Some poor schmuck would be controlled by his wife’s in-his-face insensitive behavior. She would humiliate him before friends, relatives, and strangers just because she was a friggin’ bitch and could get away with it and he did not have the balls to set her straight.
So now, henpecked is not only a misnomer but politically incorrect, even insulting to the woman who is doing the henpecking. Now she is in charge, and he is in her charge. Now she can be in-his-face and insensitive, and humiliate him to any extent in front of anyone. But this is good, because this is now a Female Led Relationship, and the rules are set: she is in charge, she can do anything, and he is to comply with whatever she decides. He is just a dolt who is not allowed to make a decision because she is the smart and intelligent one in the relationship.
Has anything changed other than the perception of the relationship?
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Way Back ...
I was in elementary school. I had already learned from my parents the order of importance: family, community, country. If family failed, there was nothing left. But if I could serve family, then the others took importance in the order shown.
I had a friend whose home I visited occasionally. His name was Deák Feri. His home was across town a long walk, but I did it for he was a fine fellow, and had interesting pedigree. His father was an enemy of the state, and his mother was a beautiful woman with ties to the old aristocracy. He was into engineering as I, and we had good times inventing things and playing with them. Then one day I learned that his father was discovered in the attic of an out building, and that his mother, oh the horrors, was supplying him with food and such. The father, of course, was arrested, and without a trial was executed. The mother was put into prison. Those were the times of our days.
It is many years and some continents away now. I have not kept touch with Deák Feri. At first it would have been dangerous to both of us. Later, well, maybe impossible given the oppressive government, which I damaged, and then left to its own devices to eventually fail.
I was fortunate to land in the United States of America and many years later obtain citizenship. Those of you who were borne here and managed to ignore the true history of the best country on this earth should do some studying. Read and study the constitution. That is the basis of this great land. If you ignore it, and many of you have, you will lose your freedom. We see it flittering away as allowances by the federal government. You should also study old history, not the politically correct crap now provided as such in schools.
I know what it is to be without freedom. It was before I came to the USA. It was a matter of my life, and I had to kill to keep it. I was fortunate to survive. The ones on the other side killed were not worth the air they breathed. I am not talking of ordinary street thugs. These were state hired thughs who would kill their mother on orders. When their day came they met their dues.
I had a friend whose home I visited occasionally. His name was Deák Feri. His home was across town a long walk, but I did it for he was a fine fellow, and had interesting pedigree. His father was an enemy of the state, and his mother was a beautiful woman with ties to the old aristocracy. He was into engineering as I, and we had good times inventing things and playing with them. Then one day I learned that his father was discovered in the attic of an out building, and that his mother, oh the horrors, was supplying him with food and such. The father, of course, was arrested, and without a trial was executed. The mother was put into prison. Those were the times of our days.
It is many years and some continents away now. I have not kept touch with Deák Feri. At first it would have been dangerous to both of us. Later, well, maybe impossible given the oppressive government, which I damaged, and then left to its own devices to eventually fail.
I was fortunate to land in the United States of America and many years later obtain citizenship. Those of you who were borne here and managed to ignore the true history of the best country on this earth should do some studying. Read and study the constitution. That is the basis of this great land. If you ignore it, and many of you have, you will lose your freedom. We see it flittering away as allowances by the federal government. You should also study old history, not the politically correct crap now provided as such in schools.
I know what it is to be without freedom. It was before I came to the USA. It was a matter of my life, and I had to kill to keep it. I was fortunate to survive. The ones on the other side killed were not worth the air they breathed. I am not talking of ordinary street thugs. These were state hired thughs who would kill their mother on orders. When their day came they met their dues.
Total Control
Now that I am alone for a week I have a lot of time to think. I have thoughts that transcends FLR. They even consider issues other than sex. Yes, I know that you know me as a horny person, but I have some feelings of wider coverage. My Patriotic Friend and I have discussions of ideas and concerns that affect our country and future. Here is a piece of wisdom from him.
An Essay By My Patriotic Friend
An Essay By My Patriotic Friend
Not one man or woman, nor a select group of people can make long-term decisions on what is best for us as a nation. This is the problem with our government. The people involved may have our welfare in mind at first, although I doubt it. I think it is mostly self service, and to hell with the people who pay their extravagant salaries and lifetime retirement benefits.
Aside from their avaricious inclination and lifestyle they are not smart enough individually and collectively when compared to what can be achieved by our nation as a whole. The United States of America is the only nation that has clearly demonstrated what can be done by freedom. You may argue the virtues of “isms”, and provide anecdotal evidence to shore up your beliefs, but on the long run, capitalism within a free society is what has endured, whereas all other “isms” have failed so far. European countries are going bankrupt. Some are abandoning the social welfare schemes because they can no longer afford them. Yet our Dictator in Chief and Congress are hell-bent on mimicking the European failed policies to lay out a good job for themselves at our and our children’s expense.
Capitalism relies on individual ingenuity and willingness to pursue an idea until it pays dividends. It creates jobs for those who are without ideas. It creates jobs for those who are willing to work. It discourages those who want to live off the earnings of the achievers. Capitalism thrives on the energy provided by willing and able members of a free society. Every member benefits from this energy, even those who sponge off our earnings.
When there is a problem that transcends the society, self-serving, and even well meaning members of the government step in to solve it. What they end up doing is to manipulate a narrow aspect of the symptoms. On the long run, they simply add to the problem, and cause other problems.
Capitalism can solve problems if given a chance. The reason is that the collective mind is vastly larger than the mediocre minds limited by the size of the government, and the huge bureaucracies that they rely upon. Capitalism relies on individuals all over the society. There is a vast resource of ingenuity among the population. One or more can be brilliant. Many can surpass the limited intelligence of the governmental members. When our government begins to limit this societal cornucopia, our lives become saddled under impossible constraints.
Capitalism does not deal with pseudo science and pseudo economics such as carbon credit, cap and trade, or government forced health care. It encourages people to figure out what is best for them, and allow it to do so.
It used to be said, “Charity begins at home”. That has become a national issue lately. But charity is not the charter of our federal or even state government. If our elected representatives took a four-year vacation, for which we would pay, our country would do very well. At the end of the four years we could reflect upon the improvement of our lives, and decide that lack of action in Congress is more beneficial than their managing of our lives.
絕不要羞於承認自己不知道的事。......................................
I have gone over this issue once, but had no resolution. Those of you who leave comments in a different language, they show up like the title of this post. I will not publish them, for they are simply cluttering the blog space. If you really want to leave a comment, please do so in English.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Home Alone
I am free as far as messing with the little guy is concerned. I can do to him, with him, or he can do to me whatever our fertile imagination provides. Yet, it is not as good as it would be with MW.
MW is off on her annual week’s stay with her friends at a nearby resort. I drove her there and moved all their luggage and stuff into the units that they were to occupy. We had a nice dinner in the main unit, and, as usual, I spoke many words of double meanings and they were understood. They know that I am a horny bastard ready to be used. With wine and spirits I may have had an excuse for my wise-ass comments. I assumed that MW would punish me for them, but she let me get away with them for now. That is both good and bad. I stayed overnight, and left mid-morning the next day to go home to allow the lovely ladies enjoying a few days of vacation.
I am now at home alone. I can indulge in my right hand gratification as much as I want. If she were to ask about it later, I would tell her. If she did not, it will remain between me and the little guy. I miss her. Her absence reminds me of how much I love to be with her.
MW is off on her annual week’s stay with her friends at a nearby resort. I drove her there and moved all their luggage and stuff into the units that they were to occupy. We had a nice dinner in the main unit, and, as usual, I spoke many words of double meanings and they were understood. They know that I am a horny bastard ready to be used. With wine and spirits I may have had an excuse for my wise-ass comments. I assumed that MW would punish me for them, but she let me get away with them for now. That is both good and bad. I stayed overnight, and left mid-morning the next day to go home to allow the lovely ladies enjoying a few days of vacation.
I am now at home alone. I can indulge in my right hand gratification as much as I want. If she were to ask about it later, I would tell her. If she did not, it will remain between me and the little guy. I miss her. Her absence reminds me of how much I love to be with her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
