If sub does something, should Dom be willing to? (and vice versa)

Discussion in 'Section open for any subject to discuss' started by Foreverbunny91, Nov 28, 2011.

  1. So, since no one knows who I am speaking of, my boyfriend has *accidently* ejaculated in his mouth, and he said it was a neutral thing and he didn't mind the salty taste... But you really should be able to do whatever you ask someone else to do. He knows I'd rather drink gasoline than cum, so he doesn't have a need to drink his own intentionally. LOL.
     
  2. Knots

    Knots Member

    I don't entirely buy this whole "you should be able to do whatever you ask someone else to do". If I was running an international corporation, I'd probably have an IT technician (wouldn't that be so cool? a cute little IT technician who could have an office, a chair, play PC games when it's work time...). No chance in fuck I could do half the stuff I'd ask him/her to do, that's why I'd ask him/her to do it.

    Should be careful with drinking gasoline, is addictive.
     
  3. Excuse me, I should have worded that better. If you request that your partner do something, in my humble opinion, you should be open to them asking you to do it yourself and not expect them to do something you wouldn't do yourself. Also, it may better the experience for both of you in various ways if you were to had once done the task at hand for your partner. However, if the partner has no desire for you to do said task, and they are willing to do said task, then there is no point in that you would need to do said task before requesting your partner to perform said task for you. *ahem* For example, my boyfriend had to perform oral sex on me, before my lips were going anywhere near his junk (it's a personal issue). However, when it came to licking his tasty anus, I had no desire for him to reciprocate the task or go first.

    And I must argue that your example isn't really a good one... I wasn't talking about an expertise- I was talking about something someone has never done before. In fast food, the managers normally must be crew members before they are ever allowed to be managers. It's RARE that a manager will get a job without being a crew member first. This is for many reasons, one of them being that no one likes being told to flip burgers by someone who has never flipped burgers. This might not apply to what we're talking about, but it's what immediately comes to my mind. *ahem* That, and IT is pretty serious business. In my office, IT is like the National Guard or FEMA for computer disasters.

    However, if we WERE talking about someone with expertise in these matters, I agree that it would be rather silly for the person with expertise in a particular sexual act to ask the person asking to utilize your expertise to go first. That's... Ah, well, all that comes before "THIS IS SPARTA!!!" Hahaha. But seriously, Knotts, I really hope I did not offend you.

    *EDIT: Uh, and this reminds me of a question I had been itching to find an answer to: So, I heard somewhere that normally when doms go through a training of sorts (via mentor or a class or something along those lines) they must play the role of a submissive, and somewhere else I heard that doms should first have the equipment they tend to use on their subs used on them. Is this true?
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2011
  4. Knots

    Knots Member

    No you did not offend me, I simply dissagree with your opinion (and the opinion of many) that because you ask them to do something you need to be prepared to do it yourself. The idea that in a relationship you should constantly do direct "trade offs" like that seems immature to me. So yes, there's lots to learn from doing it yourself, but I do not think people should always "need" to.

    I simply cannot be bothered to explain my example, beyond that a sub is "skilled" in being submissive and a dominant is "skilled" in being dominant. Though in many instances "switching" the roles can have benefits, it at the same time can be rather stupid for people to do the other.

    Some doms "train" like that, others don't. It's that simple.
     
  5. JettOnly

    JettOnly Member

    I did used to think that you should be willing to take what you expect to give
    But really I see it can't be exactly black and white like that
    To put simply I'm never gonna know what cbt feels like cos I'm not equipped that way

    And of course different people will find the same thing more difficult than others
    Mental things, some people think its gay or slutty (that's a bad thing to some people lol )
    How turned on can make a big difference, like really when you are just chilling how many people are gonna like a cold cup of cum? Some mibby but much less than horney people will

    It can depend on how the idea is introduced to you as well, when I was younger guys said they wanted to try anal, no way. Then finally a guy introduced the subject a better way, and what you know, it was fun

    I think more to the point that you should see how much a person is trying for you and try and keep things balanced. Lol not with charts and things but by appriciating and doing things to make your partner know, feel happy and appreciated


    As for tasting your own, know it wasn't asked of us girlies but yes I have :)
     
  6. I think we might be two trains passing in the night here... I in no way endorse "trading" in that sense. If you are both into the same things, it works, but in most cases it ruins the point. For example, (I'll put myself out there) if my boyfriend wants oral sex, it's not fair to trade oral sex for oral sex. That's trading something I don't really like for something I don't really like. (And he likes both.) A more fair trade would be if he agreed to rp with me- he can even have me me give him head as part of it:)

    I was talking more about when someone does not wasnt to do something you're asking for... I think that partner has every right to say "you first." My bf and I have both used this card with anal, but it was more of a "i want to do this and I know you might enjoy doing it to me, but i'll feel wierd doing it if i'm the only one."

    And thanks for answering my question:)
     
  7. Smallest

    Smallest Moderator

    Moving all of these to off topic.
     
  8. Smallest

    Smallest Moderator

    With this moved, I'll add my opinion.

    I don't think they should have to, though I think in some cases it's nice to. Whether he tastes cum doesn't really matter to me, or feels impact play, but that doesn't mean switching is without merit. It means the usual top gets an idea what they're inflicting

    The problem is, of course, that the Dom is less likely to find it enjoyable, and perhaps be less willing to perform it with the sub. If the sub loves pain and the dom can't take much and learn how it feels, it can be a detriment.
     
  9. Knots

    Knots Member

    No, you really don't get it. I don't endorse direct "trades" as some sort of "in the bedroom" policy, whether that's "If you do oral, I'll rim you" or "If you lick my cunt I'll suck your cock." It's just immature and no matter how you re-word your attitude I am going to think it's an immature way of doing things; the ebb and flow of relationships should be more like a perpetually flowing river than two people throwing and catching a tennis ball.

    EDIT: Thanks Small for making into a seperate thread, I think it makes sense at this point...
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2011
  10. sebastian

    sebastian Active Member

    In a vanilla relationship, this is a reasonable principle. In a power exchange relationship, however, it doesn't really work. Masters tell slaves to do all sorts of things that the masters are unwilling to do. For example, I'll piss on a boy, but won't let him piss on me.
     
  11. That's not what I meant really, either... In a D/s type situation, it would be "I do this for you, if you dominate me," so it's already a trade of sorts. A sub of course should be able to ask them to do something different, depending on the situation, IMO. But that is all situational. Perhaps a sub has no real preferences and their only preference is to be totally and utterly dominated in every possible way? Then I'd say whatever the dom wants is fair play.

    And I did not mean systematically, either. That's a big turn-off even in a vanilla relationship, because no one wants to stand there and argue about who got what they wanted the last time or how many BJs person A gave person B in comparison to how many hours of roleplay, etc. But if someone is recieving far more than they are giving, you really need to re-evaluate what you're doing. If someone is miserable and giving all the time and the other person is always taking, then that's really no relationship at all. You don't need to be tit for tat, and yes, sometimes there is going to be a slight imbalance. Perfection will never be reached, but in a very GENERAL sense, you need a fair trade. If it's not fair, then you need to change something or find a better partner for yourself.

    Power is a LOT different than both partners being mutually satisfied and getting what they want. Some folks can surrender all power to another person and still get exactly what they want. In a vanilla relationship, that's highly unlikely, of course. If someone is ever in sexual situation where they completely surrender all power to someone and do not get any satisfaction from it, I highly doubt that was consensual sex. But if they got satisfaction from it, then it's just a fair trade:)
     
  12. Knots

    Knots Member

    That's (in bold) precisely what you seemed to be describing and principally what I had a problem with, so now that you've retracred that I'm slightly happier but I still want to challenge your revised statement, and I think mostly in terms of semantics...

    "but in a very GENERAL sense, you need a fair trade."

    "Fairness" is perhaps the wrong word to use, as I think few vanilla relationships are "equal" which fairness naturally implies (anecdotally; you do get vanilla relationships with phenomenally high power exchange levels going on). Equally "trade" implies a direct exchange, whereas working relationships are much more fluid.

    So cutting away this wording, all workable social relationships require continous attention from both parties to ensure that the other is content, in the bedroom and out of the bedroom. This is to a great degree "natural social instinct", and far less crude than what your idea of "trade offs" implies.
     
  13. To be more clear, I suppose SOMETIMES it can be systematic, but I don't really agree with it. My overall statement is that each partner deserves to get roughly the same amount that they give, and if systematically is only way to do it, that's better than having a neglectful imbalance of giving/recieving... But relationships that HAVE to run like that, really aren't good relationships and are rarely ever healthy or long-lasting.

    *ahem* And I've known plenty of vanilla relationships with a rather unhealthy power imbalance. (Unhealthy meaning it wasn't really consensual, and the boyfriend was an arse with some pretty nasty psychological pathologies... Not that mentally ill persons are all assholes- Technically, I'm one myself.) And of course, there's always what I call "prostitution marriages" where the couple basically does a money-for-sex exchange. Those you could arguably say fall under the crude idea of trade-offs you had thought I was meaning:)

    I still think if someone asks someone to do something they don't want to, they should be open to the idea of trying it themselves first, in order to make their partner feel safer and more secure.
     
  14. Knots

    Knots Member

    I'm glad you aren't advocating silly systematic trade offs.

    However, your generalisations are far reaching and you only really state the "negative situations" and I feel obliged to counter them.

    Plenty of "good couples" have someone who really gives and someone who really takes and there's plenty of vanilla relationships with a *healthy* power imbalance; some people really do want someone who can just "take control".

    I've came across the attitude of "us and them" when it comes to vanilla and BDSM stuff before, and it's really not like that. You don't need to be into whipping someone all night long to power exchange or into power exchange to whip someone all night long. Yet people follow the "power exchange works for them!" attitude because they only seem to notice advert, un-healthy power exchange with vanilla couples.
     
  15. I tend to notice the unhealthy over the healthy, as that's what I was raised to do. Furthermore, the good in things does not really matter much to me in contrast to the bad. Even if there is more positive then negative attributes to a certain something, you cannot overlook the negative and the people who may be suffering because of it. If you would like a grim reality, I may give examples.

    And to defend my generalizations, please keep in mind my areas of study rely on generalizations for all research and to even exist. I almost always talk in generalizations when talking about other human beings, with some obvious exceptions.

    I also do NOT have an "us and them" way of thinking when it comes to BDSM. That's insane, as I'm honestly more vanilla than kink... I really cannot and will seperate myself from either, as doing so would be rather cold. I just like my generalizations:)

    And of course, there are healthy vanilla power imbalances, silly! I never said there wasn't. The exact percent that can be considered healthy, however, is up for debate. You may also bring into this whether or not the societal pressures, psychological issues or circumstantial factors that played a role on the consent of a certain power imbalance are healthy... But that may take all night!
     

Share This Page