My Service Oriented Submission Revealed

In this series of posts I will explain the reasons for some of my views that one could call, among other things, jaundiced. I prefer to call it experienced. I have experienced good things. I have had expectations come to fruition, and then subsequent frustrations. I have experienced the irony of many submissive man’s dreams: chastity and denial. I will now put this into the context of my reality. The subjects I will present are

• Formalized Service Oriented Relationship
• My Case of Service Oriented Submission
• The events Leading up to This Scenario
• What Is Left?

 Formalized Service Oriented Relationship

 

Looking over my earlier postings there is evidence of evolution of my views. I may be contradicting my earlier pontifications, but I have to say some things. I don’t know whether I am experiencing an early onset of senility or a late acquisition of wisdom that seems to have afflicted me. Nevertheless, my thinking is evolving.

 

The moment I returned to Rika’s book pecipitated this revelation. When I first read this book I was enamored by her views, her applied methods, and what she was trying to teach to would-be-dominant females who may not have had any interest in domination other than from time to time in the bedroom. A few years downstream, as I mentioned in my previous post after re-reading of her book “Uniquely Rika” I became disenchanted with her approach to handling her submissive men. Her method is unworkable in general. Her main theme, service oriented submission is being discussed in blogs lately. In most cases it is with the naïve view that I presented in my early posts. 

 

One of these blogs is different. I was trying to catch up with the postings of one of my blogosphere friends, Scott, who appears wanting to work with his wife Em to turn his voluntary servitude into more service oriented submission. See I always Want More written by Em. If the direct link does not work, try to navigate back to the March 20, 2011 post. Their situation, however, is much different from what Rika advocates. For one thing, Scott and Em are real in a real life D/S marriage. Em seems to like mental torture by cuckolding, mild humiliation, and promises of physical punishment. The promised punishment may be for real or perceived misdeeds of Scott, or simply because she needs to unwind after a stressful week by whipping, binding, caging, and doing other delectable treats with Scott the lucky target. Given all that, the only resemblance to Rika’s method is the name: service oriented submission. She actually wants Scott to get off on serving her regardless of what she does to or for him in return. There is no problem, however. Scott is perfectly willing to hone his skill at gracious service to his loving wife, for he knows that she needs it, and she never neglects him. In their relationship her motivation is self-satisfaction just like Rika’s. The difference is that she actually enjoys treating Scott. Unlike in Rika’s relationship, these are not “rare” or “occasional” gifts unrelated to Scott’s behavior. There is love and satisfaction for both parties.

 

The unique case of Rika's requires two people of specific nature. One, selfish and uninvolved, devoid of love or attachment to a submissive. Her only investment is the time she had put into training him. The other requirement is a man who remains satisfied to serve her in all respects for an occasional crumb tossed his way that he can lick off the floor. He needs no recognition, no reciprocation of feelings, no safety, no escalation of pleasure, no evolution of the situation, no chance to state his needs. You can see how difficult it would be for two people to find each other and, especially, to stay together to fulfill these requirements. What she has is a man with no soul. What remains of his character is like the product of breaking a wild horse: he serves well and willingly, but his spirit is gone. Regardless of how good a boot-licker he is, at some point she would become bored with him. What happens then? Does she begin to pay attention to him and challenge him in ways other than adding more mind-numbing drudgery to his daily routine? That is unlikely, for that would be changing her basic premise of the service oriented submission that requires total servitude in exchange for absolutely no reward or recognition. The alternative is to get rid of this slave and find another.

 

She mentions communication, but then reverts to communicating her way: She tells, he listens. That is not communication. That is stating a request by one party with no recourse by the other. While Rika still had her blog up I once asked her a question. “I sometimes have problems that need to be discussed with my wife. If we follow your rules, I may never be able to voice them. How do I let her know?” She answered, “You don’t. That would be topping from the bottom.” I took her answer as trivial, and never asked another question from her.

 

Next installment: “My Case of Service Oriented Submission”

 

Tongue In Cheek

I am a sucker for women of well-endowed features. They tend to abound at WalMart. Before you laugh your ass off, I want to state that this is not the only reason for my visiting this icon of American genius in retail marketing. I go there to buy lawn chairs, kitty litter, and an occasional box of ammunition for my various guns after I had used them for legal purposes. I know this is weird, but from time to time, I can find attractive females even at WalMart. I consider it slumming. This is no reference to the employees, but to the shoppers, of whom I am one.


Between getting my thrills with visits to see the WalMart fauna, I bring up websites occasionally to get some ammunition of a different type to replenish my supply. These sites present females of slightly higher presumed quality, for most of them appear washed, albeit, heavily made-up. I know, appearances can be deceiving. However, when my expectations are mostly limited to looks, pictures are, as we often say, perfect. Unless the soles of her feet show that she had been frequenting the WalMart parking lot barefooted, lack of cleanliness is not clearly discernible, so I can assume pristine qualities for the moment. With my hormones raising hell from below, I can be excused of going with those first looks: they are delicious. They are the caliber of female that I imagine would feel good under my fingers and tongue. But that is just a mental hobby without any possibility of physical fulfillment. I spend no effort or tangible resources to pursue it further than looking on my wide-screen monitor. I imagine. I wish. And then I go on to more justifiable pursuits, such as reading world news, and making indignant comments at the reported and recorded stupidity of our elected representatives at the federal, state, and local level. After a while I return to the women of large caliber for rest and relaxation, which brings up the subject of this post: my tongue between some cheeks.

In support of my part-time hobby I want to leave you with something pleasant. She is not exactly WalMart material. Given the context, heavy makeup is not an issue. Not being clean is defined only by the quality of the river water in which she has obviously dipped as evidenced by her damp hair and the sun reflecting off her wet skin. She has a natural beauty without artificial means, background, lights, or paraphernalia. Sure, being young helps, but I suspect that her beauty transcends her weight and her age. She would attract a regular human male plus or minus many pounds of weight and years. The second picture is even more earthy. You can see the hot sand clinging to her perspiring body. A dip in the surf with her would be lovely.

 

Chastity Without Being Asked

There is a lot of material on the blogs about chastity primarily on the man’s part so to speak. On the woman’s part, well, the other side is advocated: chaste men, promiscuous women. Why is that? Is it a form of reparation for past injustices in which the men were usually the ones to stray from marital vows? Is it just another form of submissive self-abuse by men? Is it another form of dominance by the feminist movement? Is this good or evil? Will this right wrongs? Will this make both sexes happy?

I admit that I am fascinated by the trend, if it is a trend. At the least, I am intrigued by the details that men and women involved in this subject add to the discussion. It is fun to see newcomers asking for help, even adding naïve, but to them, authoritative views as they see it. It is somewhat sad to see experienced but on the way to disillusion views of some who have done it and found it less than a lifetime commitment. Between the two there is a lot to be appreciated, to be amused by, and even to learn from.

I cannot really add to the primary reason for male chastity. All has been said, even invented. There are those who want to stop excessive masturbation, those who just get off on this very specific form of bondage and discipline. Then there is the fantasy partner who forces the men into chastity through physical force, blackmail, avarice, or just plain sexual traps. Regardless of the source of the sexual style, the details are endless, female dominant, and cater to men’s need for attention. Sure, we are, or can be aloof, show no emotion, and go through the dangerous avenues of life with stoic manliness. However, when it comes to an understanding female, we drop all that and salivate at her pheromones. They have us by our ovoidal testosterone containers and we love it.

What we love even more is a physical containment in addition to the mental and primal. Primal is the willingness to follow her female scent against all odds. Mental is the fixation on her only even in the absence of any tangible reminder of the warmth, charm, goodness, pain, suffering of which she is capable to induce on us. The physical containment is an added spicy enticement to remember her, and only her, as long as she has the key and at the same time provides constant or frequent reminders of our dependence on her. Sure, we could smash the damned cage and whack off any time. But few of us would dare, for that would jeopardize a deep relationship, which we somehow nurtured even unknowingly: remaining loyal to her in spite of our nature, against all temptation, against our better judgment, against our physical needs.

Here I am, for the moment, without a chastity device installed by her or by her order. I could do self-gratification any time. Yet I choose to abstain with the hope that she will need me soon and I want to be ready and able for her. I could have release, and be ready for her in no time. But there is guilt in doing so. She has not asked me or told me to be chaste to that extent. Am I being foolish? Am I wasting my pleasure? Am I wasting my time?

Rika Revisited

In spite of what I say in this post, the book, “Uniquely Rika” is worth reading. I have had it on the side bar to say exactly that. However, you will have to weigh its implications, for your future is at stake.
When first reading it I was on a hormonal high with a fully established FLR. I read and understood what I thought she was saying in her book. I remember liking the book much when I first encountered it. I remember feeling that I could be hers in a fantasy scenario as she described her views. Now, over three years later, things are different. I have a logical base from which to assess her presentation of the subject. I have re-read the book with a clear mind.

Rika in the first page of the book says, “ … many couples have attempted to establish working D/s relationships. Surprisingly, most fail in the long run. Why should this be?”

Have you asked yourself? Have you come up with an answer? I have some answers.

Uniquely Rika is based on a flawed assumption that men want to be submissive, but are fixated on the assumed ideal of a pornography mistress of whip and stylized femdom-wear. They cannot distinguish between their fetish and their innate submissiveness. She will set that straight so that the men will know right from wrong. Right. Exactly as she sees it.

Some men are confused on that subject. They may be addicted to the shallow unattractive females portrayed by the media in artificial background and no substance. They have not developed a relationship with an understanding female. All they have is their fantasy even when married and with children. I despise the stereotype dominatress, and maintain that my personal fetish does not support the porno industry. I find it disgusting and boring. At the same time I don’t diminish any man’s wishes for fantasy fulfillment as long as it is non-injurious to self or others. They are no worse than any women’s wishes for the same or for benign romantic play. So, starting with the flawed assumption I will elaborate on the book.

Contrary to Rika’s claim, a man needs more than to simply satisfy his need to serve and subsequently be allowed to do so by a woman. Rika’s service oriented submissive is happy just to serve even though his original needs and whishes are not met or even addressed. That is a gross assumption by her, and nowhere substantiated by her or in literature.

She is talking about the supposed fetish that men have for being whipped by a skinny abrasive woman clad in ridiculous leather and rubber outfit. Such man would be a fool to want that and to try to live with 24/7/365. Still, in spite of my aversion to the stereotypical whip-wielding dominatress, I believe that if a man needs just that, he should get it from time to time. As for the simple solution of transforming a man into Rika’s service oriented submissive, it might work on one who is at heart a submissive and has no higher aspirations. It is also easy when her household is simple: up to three bedrooms, no pets, no yard work, few if any children. In other words, an hour or so a day keeps the home clean, rest of the time can be devoted to full-time servitude to the mistress of the home. It is good if one can afford it. Alas, few of us can be kept servants without working for a living on the side. When having to work for a living, personal service for the mistress cuts into sleep time. I know how it is to sleep three hours a day for months without a break.

The “Deal” in chapter three of the book (on page 47 of printed version) is neat and seems fair: he serves, she enjoys. That is what the basic premise is supposed to be, also assumed to be a submissive man’s dream. Alas, nothing is as simple as she presents it. Her rules work in her case only and maybe in some few cases with truly submissive men and the women who are cold and calculating about taking advantage of it.

She talks about making routines to allow her dealing with fewer responsibilities and him more things to do. She says, ”The obvious benefit is that we end up with an ever-expanding, prioritized list of tasks for him to do and a schedule for him to follow to get them done. Once on the list, he can put the task out of his mind. … frees up his time to take on more tasks.” I think that her message is appropriate for young people where the man has not taken responsibility for much, he tends to waste his time on games and video entertainment, and wifey is stuck with the work. For more responsible males already doing realistic home maintenance it is a farce. As much as some of them might want to do personal service for the female in charge, there is only so much time in a day, and one must sleep to survive the next day.

Full time service without compensation is unreal regardless of how kinky the man is. Lack of compensation is Rika’s prime directive. She talks of gifts to be bestowed on occasion just to keep the slave from rebelling under the yoke of her imposed tyranny, but not giving him the idea that he is rewarded for good behavior. Some of us have a problem with that.

Rika simplifies the control that she offers over what she assumes to be submissive men. In her experience it worked. Her experience with submissive men may be limited to one or two possibilities. One possibility is that she is or was a professional dominant whom men pay for her services. Her exposure to and control and observation of these assumed submissive men were limited only to her workplace. It would be limited to these customers who were returning for the coveted mistreatment. That would be mistreatment that she dismisses as undesirable fetish by men that should be channeled into service oriented submission to a woman. She does not know how these men performed on the long run on their own. In addition, an assumed submissive man performs a certain way with a professional, but that is no indication of how he will perform with a personal partner in real life. Now, if she is talking about real experience with respect to her husband, I am somewhat confident that she is telling the truth. That may be where she has collected all of this wisdom, albeit, limited in scope. If true, the problem is, this particular experience is based on one man. We are all different. What worked between her and her husband does not make a general rule. Some of her rules may apply over a short time, but they are not applicable to all men all the time, not even to her husband that she claims to love. There is no such rule.

She advocates communication. That is a platitude, no different from saying, “I like nice. Nice is nice.” Some people are incapable of communication. They are capable of yelling, berating, hurting, whining, playing victim, etc., but communication to resolve issues is beyond them. That leaves out a large segment of the population. Sure, it is best to try to communicate. Did that work in your case?

She explains Rules of Engagement:

1. You [the female] decide if and when you play
2. These are gifts you’re giving him …
3. They should never be confused with his service to you …
4. When you’re done playing, things go back to normal …

This is fine if you are giving him gifts and that is all he will ever want. If he is a true slave, than his feelings are of no concern. Otherwise, he will falter. Not many of us are true slaves.

At the end I think that she is more warped than the professional dominatresses. Professionals do it for the money. She does it, if she is honest, from conviction. She wants service. She promises nothing. Only a foolish man would go into such relationship with her. Despite her claim to love her husband, her words refute them. Her manipulations in chapter 5 (starting on page 66) are cold. They simply treat a symptom that she would rather not, but realizes that one must pay the bills. There is no love, not even liking in her description of what a woman should do to her submissive man on “Simple Gifts” (page 68 an on). She says, “ … [in] D/s relationship the focus is on what the man can do for the woman rather than what the woman does to the man. In this context the concepts of limits and safe-words do not apply …” I am not much for safe words, for I don’t care for role acting where “no” means “yes”, etc. However, completely detaching herself from what the man wants and needs is perverse. She may as well hire some schmuck from skid row to mistreat and not deal with the continuous education of her in-house submissive man. I know, some of you men out there think, “Hey, that’s exactly what I want!” Right. You might want that for a sex scene or maybe for a weekend before you return to your normal life. As for living with it, well, maybe, if you are bent that way, which is not true for most of us.

I am disillusioned with her book and her view. Although both have some useful qualities, she destroys the good with her cold execution of her rule. You can use the book as an instruction manual for many things in D/S and have fun on the short term. In chapter 6 and subsequent she presents many scenarios that can be kinky fun for both partners, but not in her ice-queen setting. As for applying it to your “submissive” man as a lifestyle, it is very unrealistic. Even if he is truly submissive he will have a problem with the execution of his sentence and consequently will rebel. I have my extreme and weird fantasies, but this is not one. I am strange when it comes to D/S, but I want to relate to and with a woman who has feelings for me, rather than just for herself. I guess you can call me a non-submissive.

Loving And Being In Love

I follow many blogs. A favorite, one of the astute FLR advocate bloggers who goes with the moniker, She's a wonderful wife, elaborates on love and being in love although not with the purpose of distinguishing between the terms. Among other things he says, “Just seems to me that people who are married should be in love to the point where doing things for your significant other is what makes you happy! Ever since we've been married, I've done things for her that I only did because I knew she liked it.“

I feel his genuine wanting to please his wife. It is great when long married people feel that way, rather than looking outside of marriage to fulfill their needs to love and to serve.

I was in love before I married my sweetheart. That feeling may have precipitated my committing to love and honor her in our subsequent marriage forever as long as we both shall live. I have kept that feeling, but there are other issues as we mature in a relationship. The all-powerful feeling of being in love is no longer a driving force in our life. Love is. We do things for each other out of genuine love whether it is a partner, children, or close friends. Those things range from mundane through tedious to unpleasant. The sexual favors are just the icing on the cake when it comes to doing it between committed partners.

I could live and die doing sexual favors for her. She turns me on just by her presence, and then some. I crave giving her pleasure in any way that she desires. However, I don’t equate that with love or even being in love. Most of that is lust; the rest is a willingness to trade my sexual service for some attention from her. Of course, I also get a tremendous thrill out of seeing her beauty, getting high on her pheromones, feeling her softness under my fingers, and tasting her on my lips and fingers long after our love session is over. Truly, that enjoyment is all wired in my DNA and beyond my ability to control even if I wanted to do so. But I don’t think that is love. It is more of an addiction.

I am not suggesting that she is just a sex object. She is precious, she is my life, and she is the reason for my being. I cannot truthfully say that about any other woman. I cannot imagine being happy without her. However, serving her sexually is just what I said. It fuels my need to be subservient to her, and there is no more private and sensual way than giving her what she wants under all circumstances. Whether she reciprocates is up to her. Her loving me is not questionable. Her willingness to do some things that I would like is. We get together from time to time, but in spite of the many words of explanation over the years, we are still missing some meaning. Why else would we not make each other perfectly happy all the time?

Oh, I Am Chaste!

For the last two and a half years she has not initiated sex with me. What that means is that we have had no sex together. She has had no sex, and I have been doing no more than occasional self-gratification.

About a week ago she found a book that I purchased maybe three years back, “Male Chastity a guide for keyholders”, and asked me “Did you leave that out for me?” Well, no. It has been under her nightstand all that time gathering dust. Interestingly, she started making prurient comments about chastity and such, and even said that she would follow up on it.

I am in charge of cleaning our huge house. Since I expected to be in uniform (my natural state) all the time when at home, I clean the house as such. During the winter and early spring I tried to avoid any housework that includes the use of water where it could splash on me. Now that the weather is in the seventies, I have less resistance to wet house work. This morning she reminded me that the mistress bathroom needs cleaning, and that I would be wearing some chastity device. She suggested for me to get the old CB-2000. Wow! This is new.

We have played with chastity devices over the years: Kali’s Teeth, CB-2000, CB-3000, and some lesser toys. Kali’s Teeth is not a long-term device by any means. If you don’t believe, try it. The CB-XXXX is ok, and works, just that I could not keep it on for longer than a week or so for extreme pain conditions, and the unhealthy swelling of my foreskin. Even with that, the device had to be removed every couple of days for thorough cleaning so that I don’t end up smelling like a public men’s urinal.

In the last few months of our sparse sex play I bought a PA-5000 after having read some comments by happy users. I did email her a link to the web site where I bought it, but she did not comment on it. When the device arrived in the mail I tried it on when I knew I had a few hours alone, and I liked it. Since I am usually in uniform, I could not keep it on with her around. For that reason I had the device in the closet for a few months. A week ago she went on a two-day trip. I took that as an opportunity to try the PA-5000. I felt guilty, but also thrilled with it. I wore it for about 48 hours continuously. Here are the conclusions.

 

• The measurement instructions on the web site followed, I got the proper size, so it fits as it is supposed to.
• There is no discomfort such as the burning balls, swollen foreskin, and bulging and pinched skin through the gaps that I experienced with the CB-XXXX.
• There is no need to remove it for cleaning. When I shower I simply wash the little guy as usual, and all is clean. A hand-held shower spray does a fine job.
• When urinating with the CB-XXXX standing up (in a public restroom) I always worried about dribbling onto my legs or onto the floor, since the project no longer had the “fire hose” attribute. With the PA-5000, things work as if I had the little guy free: straight out into the urinal, no dribble, no mess.
• At home I always sit to urinate. Afterward I splash some water over the captive cock, and all is fresh and clean subsequently.
• There is no pain due to nighttime erection. Sure, I had tremendous hard-ons with this device on, but there is no pain.
• It does not feel like I am not wearing anything down there. It has weight, the tip of the little guy does not touch things as much as if it were free, and when I lie face down, such as in exercising, I need to manually move it to avoid trouble. Other than that, it is just a mild thrill to wear it. Of course, there is the mind-fuck that goes with it. There is no chance of masturbation, blowjob, or penetrating intercourse with it on. An orgasm is strictly one way, pointed away from me.

  

Day one

  

After her declaring that I will be in chastity while working on the bathroom, I tentatively suggested that we might have a better device than the CB-XXXX. She asked, and I explained what I had done. She told me to fetch it. We sat on the edge of the bed while she watched me put it on. She took the key to the embedded lock. I explained that there is no way to remove it without the key or breaking the device, and that I have not found a way to masturbate with it on. She said it looks good, and she wants to take some pictures. I suggested that the pictures would be more dramatic with my erection, but that erections have been scarce lately except during the nights. She said she could come up with one for the occasion.

I spent about two hours cleaning the bathroom, not that it was that filthy, but it is large, and has many thing in it, so it takes a lot of time. It is now several hours later, and I am happy that finally I can wear the device with her knowledge and request.

 

Day two

 

I have a large room in which I have gathered a fair amount of weight lifting equipment over the years. I usually work out at home. The last two weeks I have gone to a public place where they do physical therapy for rehabilitation and strengthening relevant parts of the body. I have had some back problems, so I followed a strict regimen of exercises under the supervision of the therapist in addition to my normal daily heavy duty weight lifting at home. There was no problem with the PA-5000, nevertheless, I was concerned. One exercise involved rolling face down over a huge exercise ball. When my encased cock was between me and the ball, I thought that the plastic device might break, and embarrass me by the pieces falling down my pant legs. It did not happen. The other concern was when the therapist was manually stretching my legs and indirectly putting weight on my crotch. I expected a “crunch” any second. That too, did not happen. Maybe I worry too much.

MW was awake when I was about to get out of bed this morning. She took off her shirt and displayed the world’s most beautiful pair of breasts. I already had a semi erection, and that helped to keep it alive. She began to tease my on-off buttons (sometimes referred to as tits) to create a magnificent albeit captive hard cock. She was regretful that she did not have her camera on hand. It so happens that mine was there from last night, so she took a couple of pictures. Alas, my erection began to subside due to the shift of her attention, and the pictures did not do it justice. I might publish some anyway.

She is still planning to brand my ass. I mentioned that the therapist usually applies a couple of patches to my butt as part of an electrical stimulation. Well, it stimulates me in other respects too. She is one of those women who look absolutely healthy. She is trim and feminine, but looks strong. Her wide hips are encased in jeans that appear is if painted on. She wears tight shirts to equally great advantage. If I were young and single I would try something.

Back to the patches, I mentioned the placement of such to MW, and pointed out that I would find it embarrassing to try to explain the brand on my butt. She said something about applying a band-aid to the fresh burn. A huge band-aid. We will see.

Trouble with the Practice of Tease-And-Deny

There are many blogs that advocate some degree of female led relationships ranging from a man staying home and becoming a housewife to becoming a total slave to a woman. Many of those favor the sexual satisfaction of the male controlled by the dominant partner. Most of these are written by men even when they claim to be women.

There are relatively few blogs dealing with the subject of tease-and-deny where the female admits to enjoying it when applying it to her partner. We are not even sure that some of those female-written blogs are authentic.

Looking at it from the point of view of a self-proclaimed submissive man, he will not voluntarily submit to drudgery and oppression by a woman without expecting some thrills for his troubles. Although a man, who is not necessarily submissive, may also want to submit in particular ways, he will similarly expect to receive some thrills from his woman. Let’s face it, a preference for voluntary submission of any nature is or at least borders on a sexual preference. In simple words, we call it a kink. Tease-and-deny fits in there perfectly, and I will show what the problem is, and why it occurs.

If you read patiently through the rest of this monolog you may want to refute my assertions by your own anecdotal evidence: citing an instance when this practice of tease-and-deny is working. Fine, if it is working for you. Just keep in mind that one instance does not make it true in general. You also have to ask, “How long has it worked? Is it continuous?”, and “Is it permanent?” I wish that I were wrong about this. Alas, that is not so.

Becoming Dominant by Decree

Before I get into this I will state that naturally dominant women have no problem dealing with intelligent and naturally submissive men. It is the other combinations that are troublesome.

There are a number of problems when the role of dominance is forced onto a woman whether or not she is vanilla or dominant already. Submissive people like to be forced in limited circumstances. Some dominants will go along with it when it titillates their kink. Those near 50/50 and above on the submissive-to-dominant scale will resist. Those closer to dominant will fight.

I am convinced that if people are left to their own devices when they are expected to be dominant, they don’t change. If conditions are right they might accommodate the circumstances and do something out of kindness for a while. The problem is, it is not natural for any person to do this. The would-be dominant woman may learn the technique expected of her by her relatively submissive man from various sources. She may learn the advantages to her. However, on the long run she will revert to her natural inclination. She is expected to perform in a way that is contrary to her being naturally dominant or dominant by decree. If she is dominant already, then she need not do anything that her submissive partner expects, after all, she wants to run the show as she sees fit. Yet the submissive partner truly expects certain things from her. So there is a logical contradiction in the requirements that leads to strife.

I have read many postings by men expressing their frustration about “Her not understanding the problem, therefore, not following through with the tease-and-deny”. They claim that even after a number of attempts at explanation, hints, offer of reading material, their women “just don’t get it”.

I believe that the women do get it. An intelligent woman understands this kinky submissive need very well. This is especially so after reading authoritative articles and books on it (I am not talking about reading the fantasy of some illiterate blogger). The problem is not lack of understanding, but lack of purpose. Every time she senses that her submissive man needs more tease-and-denial it is a chore for her that should not be assigned to a supposedly dominant woman. To a man expecting it, her reluctance makes no sense. After all, he is not asking for blatant sex. He is not asking for penetrating intercourse. All he is asking for is sexual domination by her and occasional release. In other words, “Here is the script, please follow it.”

It takes two to have a relationship. The submissive man’s part is passive. All he needs to do is follow her orders. The supposedly dominant woman’s part is active. Regardless of what the man thinks, the woman has the responsibility of planning the scenario, laying out the props, and then executing the scenario. She is also likely to do a self-evaluation afterward, “Is this what he expected? Did I satisfy him? How in hell can I be dominant and still do what he says or expects of me?”

Unless she gets a sexual thrill out of this blatant sexual kink of her submissive partner, or out of the power she has over him, she will not do it; at least, not for long, and not often. I coined the term “ignore and deny” by paraphrasing the tease-and-deny idea in a couple of my earlier postings. Ignore-and-deny fits very well into the behavior and expectations of a woman whether she is dominant or just playing dominant: it is much easier to maintain than tease-and-deny. If a man desiring tease-and-deny feels being ignored, she does not see it that way. She may feel that his being denied satisfies her obligations. If he tries to explain again, she will just feel guilty or angry or both, and the man will get nowhere. These men may as well get used to it.

Still, It Works In Short Spurts, Sort Of …

One might say that even in a vanilla relationship a woman will do things for her partner simply because she loves him and knows that he needs it. Yes she will do that sometimes, but not often enough. This is why many men wish to be in a female led relationship, and consequently become the object of tease-and-denial. That last wish validates his lack of adequate sexual satisfaction. If he achieves those two wishes, then the result will legitimize his not getting enough sex.

If she goes along with his need for tease-and-deny, she is doing something for him out of love. But don’t expect the whole nine yards 24/7/365. Even her parts would wear out if she tried. A somewhat reasonable alternative to tease-and-deny is offered by chastity play that comes with built-in denial. If she leaves most of the details to her man, then she need not do much, which supports both tease and the ignore version of denial. There are problems with these too, which I may cover in another post. The trouble is that practicing the mythical forced chastity will not change a thing. The long-term maintenance of this new kink is still her responsibility, and she will handle it the same way: ignore it.

This attitude by the woman is not because of the particulars of tease-and-deny and ignore-and-deny. If the man has other kinks that don’t work without her support, he is just as much up the creek without a paddle. Vanilla marriages and relationships break because of the woman’s unwillingness to support his kink. Kink needs maintenance for satisfied relationships, and maintenance is expensive in time, attention, effort, etc. That is how professional dominants make a living.

Rules of Dominance and Submission

Someone new to the D/S game will immediately be aroused on reading rules of dominance and submission as long as they are well written by his standards. For example, I have seen several contracts written mostly by would-be male submissives as to how to behave with respect to their (imaginary or real) dominatresses. However, after reading a lot, maybe even practicing the discipline, one comes up with rules that apply in his or her case, and don’t necessarily apply to another submissive or dominant. With rare exception, D/S is not a religious doctrine that must be followed by the believers regardless of their position.

I am amused when a dominant woman proudly exclaims, “My submissive male has no rights except those that I allow him. He will do no more, nor less, than I prescribe…” Similarly, a submissive male claims that he will follow his mistreatesses’ orders to the letter, he expects nothing in return but to serve her, … OK, these are hypothetical characters created from the stuff that is out there masquerading as real relationships. If you do enough reading, you will run across them.

Most of us (notice, not “all of us”) who have some obvious dominant or submissive leaning could go with the above two caricatures for a short time, say a weekend, and probably enjoy it much. Very few of us could go with the roles they described on a long-term basis. Similarly, few of us would be likely to go with them forever, unless dying on the job. That leaves most of us dominants and submissives to follow our own rules. These rules intersect with rules of others, but are by no means the same.

When a dominant says, “There is no need for me to say ‘please’ or ‘thank you’ when dealing with my submissive,” it is just her opinion based on her rules. When a submissive says, “My domina must tell me what I am allowed to do, how and when to do it, and punish me if I fail, and here is how she will …” he is similarly making his own rules. Some of us love these rules, others laugh at them.

If everybody followed the same strict rules, and wrote about how they live with them, there would be no interest in our reading about them. What makes reading about them interesting is how different the rules are, and how differently we react to them.

The behavior and demeanor of a dominant can range from firm but polite to sadistic and crude. When the D/S relationship is consensual, the submissive will find just the right combination offered by the dominant, and both will be happy at first. Over time they each may stretch their own and their partner’s limits. That trend is part of keeping a relationship vital and viable.

Pornographers often make the mistake of portraying dominants in a narrow stereotypical fashion, which makes their product trivial at best, annoying and offensive often. An example is a woman without redeeming features who is wielding a whip. I always say, “It’s not what you have, but what you do with it …” that counts. But, if she is unattractive, uses a nasal, whiny shrill voice, bad grammar, and badly improvised monolog while incompetently trying to impart some pain to a hapless male, the whole production is wasted. “To each his own,” to be sure, however, I have my limits. This is why I am still searching in vain for any video that would interest me to spend more than a few seconds of my time.

I don’t have rules for my own purposes, but do have preferences:

• I like a dominant woman who does not feel the need to scream or to use profanity.
• I like a dominant woman who knows what she wants and knows how to take it.
• I like a dominant woman who does not mind causing pain for her submissive, but knows her and his limits. I don’t believe in using “safe words”. To me “yes” means yes, and “no” means no, and so it should be for her.
• I like a dominant woman who is polite and caring while she can be strict and firm to any extent.
• I like a dominant woman who can impart pleasure as readily as pain to her submissive. She knows just the right amount to satisfy herself.
• I like a dominant woman who can give me instruction to the extent that I need them to accomplish my task, thereby assume that I am intelligent.

Note that none of the above precludes role-playing, or prescribes what she or I can do. I have preferences, but the scenario is hers to plan and to execute. Her looks, age, size, shape, and weight are not prescribed either. What she wears, what she says, what she uses is up to her. She can be totally her sweet self or a dominating bitch anywhere any time. She can be vanilla but with an edge that tells me that as sweet as she is, she is still in charge. She can show me off as her submissive, or play with the straights and pretend that I am in charge. As long as she is clean and healthy I am all hers.

Of course, all this is moot, since I am not in a position to be looking for a dominant woman of my dreams: I am married to MW for life.

As a support to my treatise I am posting a poll on the subject, titled, “What Kind of D/S Do You Prefer?” If you are a switch you can answer both sets of questions. There are two categories: dominance and demeanor. Although they can overlap, they describe different traits.

If you are dominant, which of the following dominance and demeanor traits fit you best? Pick one in each category.

• Caring, firm, demanding, abusive, sadistic
• Polite, civil, careless, rude, crude on purpose

If you are submissive, which kind of dominant do you prefer? Pick one in each category.

• Caring, firm, demanding, abusive, sadistic
• Polite, civil, careless, rude, crude on purpose

Due to the limited space and capability of the polling tool provided by my blogger ISP, the new poll on the right is slightly different, but still workable.

Why Do Some Men Crave Forced Chastity?

Before I get into the subject I want to cover I have some questions. I am using Google Blogger to present and publish my blog. For a couple of weeks now the disclaimer page that warns users of the potentially sexual content of the blog shows up in German instead of English. I have not done anything on purpose to cause this. The Google support is inaccessible, so there is nobody to ask. Does anyone know why this changed from English to German? Does anyone know how to change it back?

From Horny Males to Horny Men


If men are getting all the sex that they need, chastity does not enter their mind. Most males don’t get enough, so in a way that is like chastity. Chastity can be imposed by self, by circumstances, or by another person.

Self-imposed chastity is a weird state of mind for little benefit or lack of good reason. I am sure that there are still religious and mystical reasons for it, but that is not the subject of this post.

Chastity imposed by circumstances is the most common. This is the reality when he would have sex, or at least his preferred way of sex, if he could meet the needs of the situation, which ranges from unlikely to impossible. Think of being marooned alone on a desert island, being in prison, or in some kind of medical condition that is not conducive to sex as he prefers it. There are many of us who go through this from time to time even without the above mentioned extreme circumstances. Prolonged illness, illness of a partner, shyness, being involved with some serious projects tend to limit access to preferred sex. Generally these are temporary, so a better word for it would be celibacy rather than chastity. However, the result is the same: he is not getting any.

The third reason for chastity is imposed by another person. This is rare, and in today’s civilized society makes little sense except for children and kinky adult play. Zeroing in on the most fun reason, that is kinky adult play, brings us to the subject suggested by the title of this post.

The horny state of a male is nature’s way to provide for females to become impregnated and thereby produce enough offsprings to ensure the survival of the species. Don’t blame this on men. The reason is much deeper than that: evolution presses on the viable. Those who are not horny die without viable offsprings. Of course, with today’s technology that is not necessarily a vital issue. The non-viable survive, and propagate to produce more non-viable offsprings, thereby ensuring reliance on science to survive. Then, when science fails, survival fails, and the rats will inherit Earth.

Narrowing “male“ to “man”, and his needs, one must admit that homo sapiens has come a long way to differentiate between ordinary rut and somewhat civilized satisfaction of the sexual urges. Aside from hunting and gathering to support the subsequent issues, there are social, moral, and financial implications of inserting a penis into a vagina.

In the last few decades of Western society any pimple-faced adolescent male became able to get satisfaction. When he wants oral, vaginal, or anal sex, a liberated female of whatever age will provide it. It is no longer a matter of “saving it for my love” issue. It has become “a moment satisfaction” goal. Sex is there for the taking.

In the rare case when the female refuses vaginal sex the man involved pursues his goal as he was programmed to do by a million years of evolution. He tries, he fails to succeed, he masturbates, and then he tries again. Over time he learns that deprivation of female approved sex has left him with wanting. Self-gratification works for the short term, but is much less satisfactory than being involved with a partner to provide true satisfaction. The external control is missing. She has to provide the challenge, the fangs, the claws, the software, the pheromones, in order to be fulfilled his attempt. Without these pleasure enhancers it is like … you know, self-gratification.

The average male, assuming some intelligence above the level of apes, makes a connection between self-imposed celibacy and enforced chastity. He is single or being without a partner to satisfy his urges. Even with a partner, he is missing the frequency that ranges from rare to never. The bottom line is, he is not getting enough. He thinks back to his teen-age years of wondering about things and having nothing but manual stimulation by his dominant hand, he realizes that things are not any better some years into his chronological adulthood.

Where Does He Get the Idea?

He has read pornography to learn the ways and means and to stimulate his urges. He knows that there are other ways than the dominant hand. He fantasizes and reads blogs and forums on subjects that relate to his need. He runs into the realm of chastity. Suddenly he is into hog heaven. He reads and responds to men of similar yearnings and experiences. He is horny. His sexual satisfaction graph is characterized by a flat line with occasional blips due to the dominant hand. He yearns for someone to do it to him in just about any way known to men. Even though the means are available by social intercourse, he is too shy, too ugly, too timid, or too busy to cash in on them. Then again, he may be in a relationship that has gone useless as far as mutual sex is concerned.

Mechanical Chastity

In his reading of the Internet he has run across ways of accomplishing this. Most prominent is the chastity fantasy where a key holder controls his frequency of sexual pleasure. He invests in some form of chastity device, installs it furtively on his parts, and gets a kick out of the experience. He tries to hide it from his partner until or when he figures out what might work with her. He runs into the same problems as legitimately chastised males: physical and physiological problems with the nasty device he is trying, and getting his partner interested if it works for him. He wastes more money going through the various devices and ways of acclimating himself to them. If he has a partner who does not know what he is doing, he has the problem of hiding his fetish. If his partner is aware but not willing, he needs to convince her that it would be in her interest. He thinks, “I’m not getting any because my partner isn’t interested. What if I could get her interested in denying my pleasure at her pleasure? At least I would have a reason to justify my being celibate? She could ignore me with a purpose! I would be in enforced chastity!”

Meanwhile, in spite of the problems with the device he is somewhat turned on for the nonce. It is no worse than having no experience in the real, but at as long as he is not getting any real sex, he can fantasize that he is being under chastity. It remains a thrill for a while. Then it wears off, and he releases himself. As pleasurable as the release was, he feels like a failure afterward. He is back to where he was before he first put on the first device: no sex. Is he going to re-install the chastity device? Will he wait a day or so before doing so? Will he think that next time will be better?

I am a man, so I don’t know for sure whether there are women who enjoy applying some form of chastity to their men for any reason even though this is the most coveted position by the men who want to be put into chastity. After some years of research and reading of blogs I have concluded that these women, if they exist, are rare. Men or men masquerading as women write most blogs and forum posts along these lines.

I feel that some women would prefer to keep their man’s pecker locked as a matter of convenience to them! As a result they would not have to deal with sloppy spills, grunting sweaty and prickly male bodies, and of course, pregnancy and the ensuing little rug rats. She could avoid doing some unpleasant work in exchange for satisfying a man’s weird needs.

Still, a majority of women like men, love to have sex with men, and are willing to put up with some inconvenience for the pleasure, safety, and comfort they receive as a partner. Then there are women who take the more positive approach of arranging all this for themselves, and the men in their relationship are in hog heaven. Then there is the rest …

Chastity Imposed on a Man

Putting a man into chastity is at the man’s discretion on the large. But why would he choose that? I think I know the reasons. The common denominator is that he is already not getting any or enough sex, so being put into chastity would not change that. His partner, who would or could otherwise provide his needed releases, is not doing it. What if he were to introduce her to this fetish? What if she takes it as a convenient out of dealing with his hornyness? He won’t be getting less sex, but at least he could rationalize that he is in the hands of a female who decides his pleasure, therefore it is beyond his control. He would still be getting nothing, but it would at least be because a woman decided so. The big difference is the external control.

Being Under Her Sexual Control

The problem is that the woman who does not want sex, or does not want it often, is the same woman who does not want to deal with the detailed fantasy of the man who started this process. Does she want to install the device on him? Does she want to release him for maintenance and cleaning? Does she want to prescribe when, where, how, and how frequently he should orgasm? Does she want to deal with this kinky pseudo sex just to avoid the real thing? Well, to some degree, some women do. But mostly, it is just a male rationalization of why he is not getting any sex. If, in addition, the man remains horny and is willing to do any kind of sex or lack of sex with her, then she is where she prefers to be. She has nothing to lose, and he is happy deluding himself thinking that she is controlling him. Of courses, when he becomes dissatisfied, the game is over. Who is really in control?

On the other hand, being in constant hog heaven on the short term is not that bad. One always hopes that the key holder will take our fantasy seriously enough to play along for a long time, and once in a while up the ante – so to speak. Any pleasure she allows on the side is a gift from her, any pain we suffer is a gift to her. We give up control in exchange for being taken care of. As long as she plays our game we are thankfully in it. Where is the harm?

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.

Those Were the Days ...

My Patriotic Friend is going down a path that I know I will take. He has been my mentor and confidante, a few years ahead of me in most respects. A while ago he was sharing his thoughts with me over some fine wine. The occasion was a one-year remembrance of something he had valued and then lost. He said,

“We tend to forget the original thrill of it, that first-time experience when we thought it was a gift from the gods, and we didn’t deserve it.”

He paused for effect and a sip of wine, then continued,

“We went along exploring it, finding new ways to enjoy it for a while. Then over the repeated occurrence of this gift to us we at first began to expect it. Later we became accustomed to the joy of it so much that after a while it seemed ordinary. It was like our daily bread: we no longer thought of it as a gift from the gods, rather, as something due us. All was well.

“Then at some point we realized that this continual gift that we grew to expect was no longer forthcoming. It is as if the gods knew all along of us being ingrates, and decided to bluntly remind us.”

As usual I made a note of his statement knowing that some day I will remember it just so.

Life has not been easy, but in general, good for me. I have had many good things going and I am content. I did give thanks occasionally, but I was also cocky. I seldom gave an explicit thought that some of these good things would stop suddenly.

Then it happened. Two very much appreciated aspects of my life came to an end. One was taken from me, the other I chose to give up for a good reason. The first happened about two years ago, the second a few months back.


As I learned growing up in a hostile environment, “Once you leave, you can never go home.” You may revisit, but it won’t be the same. What you lose or give up can never be retrieved. Life goes on, but along different paths.


I know I am an ingrate when it comes to the appreciation of the good things in my life. I can cite several specific instances when I should have done better. Yet, I am unsure whether I would be better off if I had been explicitly grateful for those gifts from the gods. One thing is certain: it hurts to know that I could have shared or given more, and yet I did not, and now it is too late.


A pleasant but rather sad song by Mary Hopkins from the sixties has the following passage that describes this:

Those were the days my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way…

That is the “before” part. Then after the realization of our loss,

… Just tonight I stood before the tavern
Nothing seemed the way it used to be
In the glass I saw a strange reflection
Was that lonely person really me …


… Through the door there came familiar laughter
I saw your face and heard you call my name
Oh my friend we're older but no wiser
For in our hearts the dreams are still the same …

The really bad part of this is that when things are going well we don’t know or realize that this may be the last time the good thing happens. This may be the last week or last day of our grace. This may be the last gift from the gods. A few days go by without worry, for we are ingrates. Then doubt sets in. Then after a while the realization that it is over. If we could go back to that lest episode! If we could go back to that last day! Maybe we could have and would have done something different. Or at least enjoy it more knowing that it was the last time. But we did not know until later. And here we are.



The truth is, we are an instrument of our destiny. Occasionally we are carried along by its stream, but invariably we have a decision that will change and determine our future based on what we do or fail to do. As in the song, Careless Whisper, “… there's no comfort in the truth, pain is all you'll find …“ What next?

 

Slave Versus Sex Slave

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.