Why Spill It?

I have dealt with this issue of Cum Shots before, but there has been no resolution. A few comments may have been revealing, but they were not enough to satisfy my need for an answer.

Regardless of the outcome, it is a man spilling his load by using his own hand is self-masturbation. This is as opposed to almost any kind of copulation or manual or oral manipulation by a partner or partners. Why would any man want to masturbate when he has a partner in sex?

Think about the words and phrases in italics above. “Outcome” is obvious: fluid produced by orgasm. “Spilling his load” is the typical in-your-face production of the male ejaculate onto some surface that is to be documented that it is really happening as if it were something virtuous. “Self-masturbation” is also obvious. He can do it without a partner. So, why involve a partner. Having a partner why not participate in some mutual satisfaction and skip the always available but less fulfilling self-gratification?

For a long time I have been looking for a video that would attract my attention and at least give me a rise. Alas, the only thing out there is whipping, cock and ball torture, and gratuitous fuck and suck. All involve so called professionals, most of whom are as believable as puppets, and as attractive as stick figures. From time to time there is ad-libbed acting on a third grade level but using profanities that somehow don’t fit. Oh, there is different genre, such as B/D, C&B torture, femdom, cuckolding, etc., but it is hard to tell where some of these begin or end, worse yet, who cares?

Getting back to my peeve of the day, I ask, “Why would a man work himself into a throe of passion with a willing partner, withdraw all stimulation at a crucial moment, and spill his juices on someone’s skin? Is that some sort of weird self-gratification? Is that the ultimate thrill? Which one of the participants gets joy out of it? How?

I have had intercourse, and I can tell you with firm conviction: I definitely do not want to interrupt at the point of orgasm, for doing so would be what is called in some segment of strict femdom “ruined orgasm”. As long as ruining the orgasm is the goal, I can see the point. Otherwise I don’t. Going a bit further one could assume that after withdrawing the man can grasp the situation and complete it using his hand. Sure, that would work. But why do it? If masturbation was the goal, why go to the trouble of involving another human or having it recorded? See the picture that I purloined from some source that is not notable. The female in the foreground looks somewhat bemused but not happy or appreciative. I share her sentiment. Who is going to clean up the mess, and why would she be asked, if indeed she was, to provide the canvas for this idiocy?

The next picture is more pathetic and disturbing. I could hit the man in the face and tell him to never come back, which is expressing my thoughts mildly. I could be interpreting the scene wrong, nevertheless, it is somehow inappropriate. She appears as if she had been coerced to participate in this ignominy. I could be with this beautiful woman and give her love and pleasure, and never even ask her to do this. Damn, some men are really asking to be punished for this, and not in a nice way.

Brand of Ownership

MW has been hinting of doing some branding of my anatomy. For those of you faint of heart I say, “Relax, it’s not like in the old West: Yanking a branding iron out of a fire and searing my skin while three robust cowhands hold me naked to the ground with my ass pointed at the stars.” This is much more civilized. For one thing, the cowhands would not be employed; neither of us are that much into multiplesomes, although I could be persuaded. MW knows how to make sure that I offer no resistance. Even though it would be between her and me, she needs no assistance other than perhaps one of her friends using the camera. The other thing is, the deed would be done in the confines of our home, and probably using propane-torch heated branding irons. As for the stars, well, it may be done outdoors … who knows?

Several years ago she had decided to mark my ass as her personal property. She then toyed with the ideas of tattooing and branding. She chose tattooing with a twist: she carved the initial of her first name into my lily-white skin with a sharp knife, and then rubbed ink into the scar to make it a tattoo. The combination worked. I had a period of healing after which her mark was there for all to see. Alas, as the years passed, the ink faded. The not-so-deep scar of the carving is now barely visible. Then about three years ago se re-carved the initial and left it just what it was: a thin scar to mark her ownership. But, as time went, and is still ticking, the scar diminishes. I guess it was not deep or wide enough.

She is now planning a proper branding using something hot. I am not sure that she will really do it. She tends to be squeamish about that much potential pain applied to me even though she knows I can take it. I rather wish that she would do it. Any attention from her is welcome. You will be the second to know when it does take place.

Panties: Do They Define the Power or the Lack of Power in a Relationship?

Written by “The Great Dis-Illusonist”, AKA "Susans’s Pet".


I get confused while reading some of this material. For example, from a fine blog with well-written posts, skipping any reference to identification on purpose, I quote this:

“After really thinking about it, I decided that I would just reinforce our relationship and tell her what our plans were, and what I expected from her. I did that this morning as I was getting ready to head to the office. To set the tone, I laid out the bra and panty set I wanted her to wear today. When I do that, she gets the idea that I am in one of my more controlling and dominating moods.”

One would expect that this was written by a man who dominated his female subject to the point of dictating what underwear to sport. Nay, the words are written by a woman. When she says “her” she means her male sissy person. She says, “To set the tone, I laid out the bra and panty set I wanted her to wear today.”

Here is another excerpt from a comment to a blog, I will skip the identity to protect the confused:

“There is nothing like watching your smooth sissy in her first bra and pantie[sic] set. I loved watching my cock enter sissies[sic] pussy. I swear if I kept fucking her she was going to cum too.”

If you have not guessed it, this too, was written by a woman. She “loved watching her cock enter sissies pussy”. Just who has what kind of anatomy here?

OK, let’s back off and try to understand the terms. Apparently being “her” is demeaningly feminine, a role assigned to a male who is not worthy of being “him” or masculine, or to have any thoughts of being in charge of himself. He is a mere pseudo-female who is waiting to be told what underwear to put on. Keeping in mind that this is being said by a woman, one wonders what that woman is or wants to be. If her lesser male person is in a demeaning female role, then what is she? Is she a “male” because she is stronger and more dominant? But no, she is physiologically in possession of genuine female parts, so she can’t be male. Nevertheless, male traits are strength and dominance which she is trying to assume or demonstrate. So is she a strong male, or a weak female? Or is she a weak male or strong female?

Are we assuming here that being strong and in charge implies being a male? But that can’t be! She is female and strong and in charge already. And her submissive male, strong by reference to gender, is wearing panties and bras, therefore weak.

Can you see why I am confused by the conflicting descriptions of who is what and what roles or underwear they are expected to fill? I don’t have a problem with this particular blog or what is written therein. It is typical of much out there. People playing games lose track of logic and reason, and rely on flowery rhetoric to present their case whether real or imaginary. However, I have some questions.

Does wearing panties and bras make a person a “sissy”, or is it a coveted position by mere males trying to become powerful females or weak females?

Does a woman in charge not wear panties and bras, but wears jock straps and cheesy Jockey shorts just to be considered in charge?

Does being a “just a housewife” while also being male and doing housework make this person “just a weak female”? Should he wear panties and bras to fit the role else he is not being really submissive?

Does being a strong woman and dominant in a relationship make her masculine?

Does being a female dominant make her so man-like that her submissive male “house-husband” should dress like the traditional weak female and she stomp around in boots and leather?

None of these questions are expected to get logical answers. Even though they are based on what I have read in some of Female Led Relationships, there is no logic to support any of the underlying scenarios. Actually, I don't think that any of this stuff has to do with FLR, rather, it is just ordinary kink like you and I play from time to time.

I think what is going on is a lot of great role playing that ranges from occasional bedroom scenarios to full time dominance and submission. The rules are defined by the participants, change with the season and change with the shedding and acquisition of partners. They seldom apply to you and me, at least not on the long term. It is kind of like watching an erotic D/S video where the participants are only somewhat believable. One might say, “Yeah, I could do that for a week-end!” Regardless of the impracticality of the props, the setup, the costumes, the skill of the people involved, as long as we get a thrill out of some aspect of the situation, we can say that. We also admit that there is no way we would enter a long-term relationship under those conditions.

Since panties define the roles, we have no idea who really should wear panties and for what reason. "Being in the script" is not really authoritative, since any of us could be writing it just for fun, or to dupe the gullible connoisseur.
I am still waiting for a rational logical treatise on this. Fantasy: there is neither reason nor limit.