Domination based on lust vs. affection (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress



Message

AAkasha -> Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/11/2008 2:25:55 PM)

I had an epiphany recently about the way I process casual (lust-based) domination vs. affectionate (relationship-based) domination.  It came from - of all things - watching HEROES.  I hope this won't be too drawn out.

I don't want much television - if any.  I watch hockey games on TV and news now and then, but other than that, I can't tell you anything about any primetime TV (other than ENTOURAGE).  I've been traveling a lot lately and started watching the first season of HEROES on DVD.  Somewhere along the way, not in episode one or ten, but much later on, I decided that I want to see one of the main characters, Peter Petrilli, tied up.  I became eternally hopeful that eventually, logically, it has to happen in the plot, and when it does, I am going to be really, really excited about it.  In fact, I can get myself quite wound up over the idea of it, both because I think his "character" in the program would be engaging to see tied up (that's fantasy of course) and because it would be interesting to see the actor sort that out. All this happened only because I developed an attraction to him on some level, an attraction that was not present ten viewing hours ago.

This is the same kind of attraction that has developed when dating a guy that maybe I thought was not that interesting, but he grew on me.  I can recall dating in college when I would not reveal yet that I was kinky, and along the way, when feelings of attraction developed, it was a very exciting, nervous kind of time. I remember sitting with a guy I was getting very attracted to and having to wrestle with what I thought were almost comical, uncomfortable feelings - feelings of "Gee, I wonder when I should tell him that I really, really want to see him suffering and in pain."  Those feelings excited, but even a little shy, attraction -- first kisses that would start to include tell-tale hairpulling and "oops, sorry, did that hurt? Well, actually, I'm not *that* sorry...you see...." 

This kind of "attraction" based femdom desire is very different from the way I process simple, plain lust.  See a guy, think he's hot, want to tie him up.  Don't know his name, personality, or anything about him - but, he's hot.  Open and closed case. I would casually dominate guys in clubs all the time - nothing sexual mind you, just casual bondage, some slapping around, BDSM if it was in an appropriate club, etc.  Online, that can translate easily -- it's the process of going to a gay site, paying a membership, and being spoon fed images and videos of REALLY hot guys tied up and struggling or being used.  See a guy, think he's hot, pay a fee, see him submit.   Instant spoon-fed submission - yet, I know nothing about their personality, fears, desires, emotions.  Just hot guy tied up.  No chase required, no butterflies in tummy, no biting my lip when the handcuffs come out of the purse for the first time.  No wondering if episode 18 will be the one Peter Petrilli gets tied up, and whether he will struggle and beg or take it like a man; yet, I can sure spin a lot of tales in my head about it and imagine how it might go.

That process -- the process of attraction, of affection developing (even if it is toward a *fictional* character, a la Heroes example) creates an entirely different kind of femdom hunger and satisfaction. And it's a much richer, deeper, and rewarding - by far.  That's not to say that spoon-fed BDSM surrender, via a random guy on the Internet who is on his cam and ready to go without knowing my name (and he's hot), or a photo set or video of a model named "Nicolai" on some Russian pay-per-view porn site isn't *good*, but it's different.

My entire "desire" aspect of bdsm that I grew up with - my pre-teen, sexual development stuff, the stuff that shaped my femdom side, was based entirely on the anticipation of *when* is "this guy" (who I like) going to be tied up, vulnerable, helpless and how is he going to react.  "This guy" could be hero on TV show or in a movie, or a guy I had a crush on at school.  The end game is so much sweeter when there's some build up around it and when I am building an attraction to the man based on his personality and my emotional investment in him.

But it's a time investment, isn't it?  It's an interesting thing to consider, I think (and for those that read this far).  Nowadays I have found lots and lots of video clips on Youtube of men in bondage in mainstream movies and on TV and I watch them all the time.  But now I wonder if it's ultimately a waste of time; sure, I get excited when I see a (handsome, charismatic) man helpless and bound on video; but if I saw the *entire movie*, it would be eons more compelling and emotional, because I'd have some affection (probably) for the hero and I have invested in him emotionally on some level.

Six months ago if you showed me a picture of Milo Ventimiglia and said "would you enjoy seeing him tied up" I would have shrugged and said "well, he's sort of cute, so maybe."  Now? HELL YES!  I think I need to watch a little more TV.

I think many femdoms don't care for any kind of casual/lust based BDSM, probably based on the above observations. I've still found that I can really enjoy flipping through an issue of "bound and gagged" and looking at good bdsm porn without knowing anything about the emotional (even if it's fictional) makeup of a man; but now, I'm realizing maybe I've started to disgard a very rich, fulfilling part of BDSM in exchange for "get it quick, easy, right now, just click a button."  On the one hand I'm just talking about how I obtain and view BDSM materials; but it also is an analogy for how one processes real life relationships -- casual, vs. intimate.

Akasha



CoasttoCoast -> RE: Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/11/2008 11:21:04 PM)

I find that while physical attraction is important for me, attraction to a personality is so much more important. The physical side of lust really only needs to reach a certain point, after that point, a persos personality will decide if i am delirious from desire, or just think they are a little cute.

p.s. keep watching. ;)



Wickad -> RE: Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/12/2008 12:56:44 AM)

(fast reply before bed...)

I envision my hand around the guys throat and slamming him into a wall ....

LOL ... go figure!  You seem to have a thing for bondage and I have a thing for physically taking folks down - lol.

I do get images flashing through my mind of the above.  They come and go at random as I'm walking through my life.  I don't play casually because I don't find it as fulfilling as my fantasy life and (mainly) because random play seems to be catering to men's wants and I "always" want to frustrate those urges - lol. 

I find getting to know someone very slowly (over a few months) without any outward, specified discussion of the growing D/s dynamic the best.  Casually "asking" him to do something (like: "could you go get me that X, please") and having him automatically do it without hesitation.  Taking that interaction on until he sorta stops, pauses, and realizes what he's been doing.   I usually pull it back about then as  I don't believe in non-consentual play - lol.   That being said,  it's these early interactions and how he responds that lead me to either start serious rounds of negotiations or just relegate him to 'friend'.

As corny as it sounds, unthinking obedience is what really does it for me.

Wickad

PS - I'm sure I'll write more but ... maybe tomorrow after I've slept - lol



DelilahDeb -> RE: Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/12/2008 3:27:42 AM)

OP:

You've identified yet another piece of how I operate (as compared to other people that I don't "get"), so thank you!

As you describe the two styles, lust-based or casual doesn't really do it for me. Which explains my near zero interest in any sort of porn, at least the visual varieties. Movies? bleah. Photos online? shrug. Those silly photo ads along the edges of CM? my reactions vary from bored to sniggers (I'm sorry, there's nothing at all hot about the skinny bimbo in fishnet showing her oversized artificially enorma-sized implants and waving a paddle.)

But relationship-based? You betcha. Which is why Nora Roberts as much as Laurell K. Hamilton stays on my reading list. They both write engaging characters...and it's the personality as much as the skin-suit that can turn my crank. Faces, not figures, the ones that have something showing more than the color of their contacts in their eyes. For that matter, the ones who have something to say, and more than two thoughts to rub together in their noggins.

Well, thanks for an insightful post, Akasha.

Delilah Deb



LadyJeelys -> RE: Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/12/2008 4:37:49 AM)

I definitely need the relationship aspect. I've tried just playing with "a" guy that is cute....but it just wasn't enough for me. Nice in the moment but....just not satisfying. I get more from secondary-even when he's an ocean away. Sigh, I am so ready for uni to be over.


And thinking a little more, perhaps its because I know him so well. I can anticipate his responses. I know what is going to surprise him, take him off "guard" and what is going to turn him on and what he'll do just because I want it. And I can be surprised when I learn something new about him.....So there is just an extra level that makes play "more" and the knowledge that we don't even have to play. We can just talk, watch a show do whatever and during it all he's still my property.



DominantJenny -> RE: Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/12/2008 5:26:37 AM)

When I was in college, I was sowing my oats, as it were. I'd been in a relationship at the end of high school that had been somewhat stifling, and I enjoyed just...enjoying myself. I went out regularly with the sole goal of picking up a one-time partner. I figured I had it pretty good with dorm security and a healthy supply of condoms. For me, food analogies work best...my college days were popping candy, sometimes by the handful. Relationships are complex, gourmet meals. You get sick of candy relatively easily...or most people do in my experience, anyway. Complex, gourmet meals, on the other hand, that often have all the same elements of the candy thrown in for good measure? That can last a long time.
Totally get the Peter thing, btw. :)



ShaktiSama -> RE: Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/12/2008 9:06:32 AM)

I can certainly see the appeal of both the Petrelli brothers both visually and in terms of personality!  [:D]  They are lovely men.  But really, the first season of that show was full of lovely men...and who doesn't enjoy a boy with a beautiful face and big melting dark eyes all helpless and sex-ay, despite all his mysterious powers?  [;)]

So far as dominance goes...my "casual engagement" level has a definite cut-off point.  I can work with someone as a photographer or a non-sexual play partner for the sake of simple friendship and a love of art.  But it goes no further than that.  I do not shed a single stitch of clothing when I'm with that person and a single tear when they're not around.

There's an element of mutual vulnerability and caring that has to be present for things to go further.  I have to have some kind of love for the person.  If I don't care about someone, their pleasure and pain is of limited interest to me.  Dominating strangers is meaningless--I have nothing to prove.



AAkasha -> RE: Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/12/2008 4:08:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

I can certainly see the appeal of both the Petrelli brothers both visually and in terms of personality!  [:D]  They are lovely men.  But really, the first season of that show was full of lovely men...and who doesn't enjoy a boy with a beautiful face and big melting dark eyes all helpless and sex-ay, despite all his mysterious powers?  [;)]

So far as dominance goes...my "casual engagement" level has a definite cut-off point.  I can work with someone as a photographer or a non-sexual play partner for the sake of simple friendship and a love of art.  But it goes no further than that.  I do not shed a single stitch of clothing when I'm with that person and a single tear when they're not around.

There's an element of mutual vulnerability and caring that has to be present for things to go further.  I have to have some kind of love for the person.  If I don't care about someone, their pleasure and pain is of limited interest to me.  Dominating strangers is meaningless--I have nothing to prove.


Your posts resonate with me a lot - as do a lot of the ladies' on this thread (thanks all - hope to reply in more detail soon) and I gain insight when I read them - so I hope you'll be patient with me on this one.

I get the whole relationship thing; I understand that it's eons better ("it" = the pleasure, rush, passion, satisfaction of making a man vulnerable) when there is a relationship in place.  But I can't deny that I get some satisfaction on some purely primal level when I see an attractive man helpless or vulnerable - whether it be video, pictures, or someone in the same room having something done to him. If I am attracted to him purely on some physical level or he has something that register as charisma to me - and that can vary.

As a photographer, I think you may recognize that some men exude some sort of charisma when they are vulnerable, and they can do this without you even really knowing their personality, right?  (I am asking, not assuming).  Does this exist?  There are some models that I have seen on BDSM porn sites (m/m sites) that give me that *tingle* when I see them -- but yeah, it's more rare, if I don't know anything about him.  There's a site called "captured guys" (I think) with literally..geez, hundreds of bonafide, attractive guys tied up.  I can sort through dozens in a flash and think no, no, no, no, no, hell no,  OH YES! and then it's there - bingo - just *something* about a guy.  Now, what *is* that?  Is it that he "looks" like someone I must have wanted to dominate in the worst way when I was younger, and I'm projecting? Or is it that some men have that "certain something" they can convey in their body, in their eyes? If so, is that a learned thing?

Akasha



AAkasha -> RE: Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/12/2008 4:12:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantJenny

When I was in college, I was sowing my oats, as it were. I'd been in a relationship at the end of high school that had been somewhat stifling, and I enjoyed just...enjoying myself. I went out regularly with the sole goal of picking up a one-time partner. I figured I had it pretty good with dorm security and a healthy supply of condoms. For me, food analogies work best...my college days were popping candy, sometimes by the handful. Relationships are complex, gourmet meals. You get sick of candy relatively easily...or most people do in my experience, anyway. Complex, gourmet meals, on the other hand, that often have all the same elements of the candy thrown in for good measure? That can last a long time.
Totally get the Peter thing, btw. :)


I hear you -- I went through that phase :)  Sometimes I miss it, but really, not much.  There was nothing better though, in comparison to the "drive bys" then having a huge *crush* on someone and wondering what he was going to do, how he would react, etc. 

This whole Heroes thing, yeah, quite distracting.  Now I see why some people right Fanfic, hahaa....I haven't been this psuedo-obsessed since I "discovered" David Ducovny 5+ years ago. Never watched X-files, thought he was entirely forgettable, then saw a few episodes and decided someone MUST tie up that man (he's a little too stoic for me - I mean, the character he played in X-files, of course).  Then three episodes in a row or something, good lord, had me in fits -- anyone rememer Pine Bluff Variant?  "You're going to have to put that hood back on me unless you want to see a grown man cry" -- was that the line? Holy femdom mental orgasm!

Akasha



ShaktiSama -> RE: Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/12/2008 5:17:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha
There's a site called "captured guys" (I think) with literally..geez, hundreds of bonafide, attractive guys tied up.  I can sort through dozens in a flash and think no, no, no, no, no, hell no,  OH YES! and then it's there - bingo - just *something* about a guy.  Now, what *is* that?  Is it that he "looks" like someone I must have wanted to dominate in the worst way when I was younger, and I'm projecting? Or is it that some men have that "certain something" they can convey in their body, in their eyes? If so, is that a learned thing?


I certainly recognize that there is a "thing".  [:D]  And it is not exclusive to men, obviously--some women have it too.  If we're going to focus on models for still photography--Bettie Page had it, whether she was playing a dominant, submissive or vanilla role.  Regardless of the shoot, she was a deliciously erotic creature, and this came through in every line of her poses.  She was sensual and vibrant; she engaged the camera and the person holding it (coincidentally, the people holding the camera on her were almost always women!), and by extension, she grabbed the audience for the photographs.  The same was true of her films.

Marilyn Monroe had a similar gift for erotic modeling.  There are tales about male and female dancers who exercised great sexual power, as well--it's not personally my thing, but I certainly recognize the amazing charisma of a figure like Nuryev or Barishnikov, which is just as impossible to hide in photographs as it is in their stage performances.  So to some degree, this ability is natural and inborn--but it is also trained and learned deliberately, through practice.  A person with a lot of experience in front of a lens will know how to work with the medium.  [;)]

It's hard to isolate the one element which makes a great performer or a great model in general.  In particular, when it comes to a model for erotic photography--there is a relationship that the model has to his/her own body, to their own sexuality, and to the photographer.  Real, natural exhibitionists--people who genuinely get off on being the object of the gaze--simply radiate heat for the camera.  There is passion in their poses.  I would suggest the same is true for great bondage models or BDSM photography subjects, top or bottom.   

In this case I can't say for sure which models are doing it for you, and whether the same men or the same photos would do it for me--erotic tastes are always different.  And oddly enough, some of what you're saying may not be the models at all, but the photographer they're working with--if you tracked down the by-line on all the photos you liked best, you might find there was one photographer who was able to create a model-camera dynamic that always worked for you.

If it's purely the model, and you find yourself reacting strongly to all the photos these men pose for--as with a Marilyn or a Bettie-class erotic model--than what we're talking about is being a genuine exhibitionist, and/or a real submissive, and having the charisma to project your erotic persona for the camera. 



Pyrrsefanie -> RE: Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/12/2008 9:01:13 PM)

Back when I was a stupid teenager I used to focus on casual encounters.  I'd meet a guy, play with him once (maybe twice), and then move on.  Which was all well and good for a while, but eventually... it got old.  Now that I'm older and supposedly wiser I've settled down into a full-time serious relationship, and it's damn exhausting.  I sometimes catch myself thinking "yeesh, it was easier to be single."  Or having the urge to tie him up but then pausing to think about the emotional investment that goes along with that for us, and sighing a bit.

So for me, at least, balance is vital for me to maintain my sanity.  Too much of one or the other will send the scales plummeting into the dark abyss of misery. 

My preference nowadays is less picking a random hottie to slap around and more fantasizing.  Whether that be reading erotica, watching porn, or imagining what it'd be like to tie that cutie-pie behind the counter at Starbucks up and beat him senseless.  No emotions required, no deep thoughts required, just good ol' fashioned lusting after a tasty piece of meat.

But once that "dry spell" passes... it's almost like I come back to the emotionally-based dominance with my boy even stronger and more intensely than before.  It's like the tides for me -- I go out, then come back and wipe out a small coastal village (replace "coastal village" with "the boy").

Is it sad/wrong that for the dry spells I've not only got my kinky stories and porno to watch, but a mental list of where all the hotties I like to drool over work so I can make a fieldtrip?  [:D]





ElanSubdued -> RE: Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/12/2008 9:35:18 PM)

Shakti,

I realize I'm ignoring the essence of your post, but...

--- Bettie Page had it...

Yes, she most certainly did.

--- Marilyn Monroe had a similar gift
--- for erotic modeling.

Good Lord did Marilyn Monroe have "it" and more.  I just finished watching The Seven Year Itch and The Misfits.  Every time Monroe enters a frame she captures the entire scene.  And let's not forget how difficult this is to do when your co-stars happen to be Clark Gable and Montgomery Clift. :-)

--- Barishnikov...

I've only seen Mikhail Baryshnikov live once (performing with the White Oak Dance Company), but what a religious, drool-worthy experience it was.  This man exudes charisma, confidence, and an astonishingly gentle sense of humour.

Elan.



Shawn1066 -> RE: Domination based on lust vs. affection (5/12/2008 10:31:27 PM)

I do not tolerate baseless lust.  I made sure I wasn't merely lusting for my Owner before I gave myself to her.  Now, loving lust is an entirely different thing altogether.  Something would be very wrong if I didn't have a lust, on some level, for my Owner.  However, I wouldn't be the kind of person I want to be if, in the beginning, I merely saw my Owner as a means to an end.  I won't be a slave to baseless lust.  I'll be a slave to her, thanks.

I'm here because I yearn for her, not because I yearn for what she can do.  There are things about her that are far more fulfilling to my soul than even the hottest scene.  I couldn't be myself if we had just a casual link.  I'm just not wired for casual relationships.

My humble opinion,
DV's Fox




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125