When I play, my submissive doesn’t get to just be the passive recipient of my attention. For me there is a feedback loop between my submissive and me that either works or doesn’t. It can’t be faked, it is part of D/s ‘chemistry’ for me, maybe others call it connection or intimacy or some such, but for me it is a combination of indefinable things. He feeds me with his honest and open reactions (lust, fear, pain, hurt, desire, embarrassment…), he reaches in and gives of himself, and I take it greedily and transform it into something else and point that energy back at him with full force, and so it goes.
I can play with two people in the same way and the actions and reactions may *look* pretty much the same if someone were watching, but with one it may ‘work’ for me, with the other it may not. Authentic vulnerability, a willingness to ‘go there’ with me, an openness that I can ‘see’, a desire I can feel, a direct acknowledgement of me (vs acknowledgment of sensation), all that and more is what makes a play partner ‘good’ for me.
I recall talking to a submissive once who said of play, “Easy for me, I just have to show up and do what I’m told”, and my reaction was “Yeah, good luck with that!”. The lack of understanding of what he had to offer to a dominant would likely make playing with him a rather dull and unrewarding experience for me.
I think that the types of submissives I like have a kind of innate ability to bring that to me. I say ‘innate’ because it is not necessarily about about ‘experience as a submissive’. I know from blessed experience that complete newbies are absolutely capable of bringing me what I need, on a silver platter, with fresh succulent strawberries, extra heavy rich cream, lightly dusted sugar, and sweet, fat, juicy, irresistable cherries on top. *Mmmmmmmmmmmm…*
What was I talking about again?
I've got nothing really to add, but to let you know that I like these musings. It's interesting to get a look into your mind and get a glance in. Honestly, it's pretty interesting to me.
John: “I've got nothing really to add, but to let you know that I like these musings.”
That is plenty to add, thank you for saying so!
“Honestly, it's pretty interesting to me.”
Honestly, I am really glad about that *smile*
Connecting with someone these days is like finding a job – if you don't have lots of experience, they don't want to give you the time of day. “Newbies” like me are grateful for people like you who give us a chance to be expressive and open in our naive way. Your post is refreshing to read.
Totally agree. I feel like it's the difference between the priority being you and him – your connection – and the priority being the fetish or action. In the second you are just a placemarker for that person, a facilitator of fantasies. But in the first… oh wow, the first is pretty amazing. It's magic when you both feel that.
I wholeheartedly agree. To me that's exactly the difference between D/s and *our* D/s. I never was attracted by BDSM-plays per se nor by professional dominatrices. I think it's all about the 'chemistry' between the partners. It's a mutual giving and recieving of truely felt emotions, actions and reactions. It's not just the action itself, that kicks me, but the sensible commitment of both partners, who really want to play with each other and want to bring pleasure to the other one mutually. If one of them doesn't do his part of the play with enthusiasm, it for sure won't turn out well … at least non to my lady and me.
Miss, I have had Ladies tell me I was fun to play with, and I guess it is because of factors like those you list. And yet, I very much resonate with the guy who said “I just have to show up.” I'm not even aware of many of these things during play, far less doing them intentionally.
PS @rené: a Lady being professional does not preclude genuine chemistry.
No, of course she doesn't, but when I have to pay for it, I can't get the idea out of my mind that she in fact isn't interested in me, but in my money. I can't convince myself that all the chemistry I, maybe, will sense, is real. There will always be the taste of fake to me. I don't say that this has to be the truth to any person, but to me it is like this.
firstly, i recently joined the kinky blogging community but i really enjoy your blog. i agree with what you said entirely. my Mistress says that there are many men who would like to be in my position (a personal sub rather than one of Her clients)… but that they simply could not offer Her the same service.
i honestly feel the same way about Her. There is something about the chemistry, that tension so close to boiling, that every action and reaction threatens to throw the balance. i have an allegiance to Her that is not requested but simply exists. we both have partners and other relationships; She Dommes professionally… but there is something that exists between us that is tangible, unique and very genuine.
“What was I talking about again?”
Is the answer cake ?
dave94: “Connecting with someone these days is like finding a job – if you don't have lots of experience, they don't want to give you the time of day.”
I think one of the reasons that newbies have such a hard time is because women have experienced those who get a little taste and then run. Maybe they change their minds, get scared, it's not what they thought etc etc. They don't want to make the investment if the newbie is going to cut and run because no matter how it seems, that hurts.
“”Newbies” like me are grateful for people like you who give us a chance to be expressive and open in our naive way.”
*smile* To me 'experience' is completely irrelevant. If a newbie is self aware, emotionally stable, honest and has the ability to be open about where he is, then the benefits of that beautiful open eyed discovery together FAR outweighs the risk that it will go wrong. I think there must be many like me, don't give up.
J: “I feel like it's the difference between the priority being you and him – your connection – and the priority being the fetish or action.”
That is a really succinct way to put what is perhaps the crux. I will think about that some more to see if that really is the key thing for me or if that is just one piece of the whole. Thank you!
rené: “I wholeheartedly agree. To me that's exactly the difference between D/s and *our* D/s.”
I like the way you express that as '*our* D/s*… I am very glad you have found what works for you!
Étienne: “Miss, I have had Ladies tell me I was fun to play with, and I guess it is because of factors like those you list. And yet, I very much resonate with the guy who said “I just have to show up. I'm not even aware of many of these things during play, far less doing them intentionally.”
A big quote there, but I didn't want to lose the essence because I think you hit exactly on the idea of it being 'innate'… you are not aware, there is no intent, it is just 'how you are'.
My experience is that some submissives can bring it *despite* or even *because* they are unaware of doing anything intentionally.
I described my first EVER play here, and the second boy had NO idea that he had something to bring to me, and in fact, he was pretty sure that this was all a bit of play-acting silliness. *Despite* that, he had an *innate* ability to slip right into this interaction between the two of us and was able to express it openly to me, and oh my, that was incredible for me. I got lucky, I think, with him.
Mina: “firstly, i recently joined the kinky blogging community but i really enjoy your blog.”
Welcome then, and thank you!
“There is something about the chemistry, that tension so close to boiling, that every action and reaction threatens to throw the balance…there is something that exists between us that is tangible, unique and very genuine.”
That is a lovely description of how it feels in your relationship, thank you for it.
Coug: “Is the answer cake ?”
It is, yes!! Where is cakeboy when you need him?!!
You must get it quite regularly, but the feelings of “YES!” I get when reading about qualities you look for in a submissive and your entire outlook and philosophy on D/s and FLR is indescribable. I am not a narcissist or dangerously full of myself. That being said, I truly believe I have the fluidity you say you seek, and I want to ask if you have any recommendations that could help me get my foot further in the door of this glorious lifestyle/understanding of the world. Although time is one way of gaining wisdom and knowledge, asking those who are ahead of and more experienced has always been very enlightening.
Imposters are plentiful in this realm so I tread carefully, for I am not interested in suspending my disbelief, and I am not REALLY in a rush(at least not enough to be sloppy) but I do want to gain knowledge and tangible experience.
Any tips or thoughts or anything from you will give me a warm, fuzzy connectedness I get only when trustworthy Alpha Females share their minds. Even if only for a moment.
I love your site!!!
I’m glad it resonates with you, and I never get sick of hearing that people can relate. I think ‘me too!’ is completely underrated as a show of solidarity :).
I have a book list which will give you some reading material.
As well as books, there is a lot of great information to be had in the wide variety of F/m blogs (see my blog list), in solid online communities like Fetlife, and if you want to meet people, the first port of call would be your local BDSM groups if socialising is your thing.
Best of luck :).
I don’t recall the author’s name, but a few years ago I came across a blog by a male submissive. I recall a comment about (from the point of view of the submissive) F/m feeling right for him.
Somebody who is not only interested in D/s play, but accepts the authority of the Domme outside of the context of play.
Interesting terminology, youthful explorer. I believe that the term “Alpha” was originally used by biologists to describe the dominant wolf in a wolf pack. Of course, “Alpha” has been applied to dominant human males.
Awhile back I came across a web site which discussed how an Alpha woman interacts with other women (in a vanilla, non-sexual context). But I can see borrowing the term for a Domme. But due to the Worm stereotype, I would be very careful in choosing a corresponding term for submissives.
Found the article I referred to earlier, “The Female Alpha”.
The article mentioned that some Alpha women choose to assert themselves at home. Which might be consistent with a marriage that is-in effect-an F/m relationship.
I hope this is read well by many… some of the rules (and common sense) you refer to do not exist in some countries, sadly. Enjoy! Thank you!