TLC @98: As rare as male sex workers who serve female clients are, I don't think it's fair to assume any given female sex worker would know the names of half a dozen gigolos off the top of her head. It's not as if they have professional conventions where they hand out business cards. It seems it is common to tip sex workers for going above and beyond, and doing this legwork (when there is no eventual paid work for herself) is above and beyond. Many industries have referral fees, a tip seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me.
If we focus on the actual words involved, she is concerned about safety, not dominance. She is hesitant to go to a random bar and seek random men. Most women would not have to spell out why. She has been abused in the past sexually. It's common for csa survivors to dissociate during sex. She would like a situation in which this is unlikely to happen- where she will feel safe. At the same time, she is not looking for a relationship. The most obvious way to go about this would be to meet someone you like, learn to trust them, etc- she's looking for a short cut around that. Someone with whom she's likely to have a good time AND feel safe. She even ends the note saying she wants a safeish space.
I really do not know how anyone can interpret this as her seeking to cede control, get drunk (especially since she states that part of the bad sex in her past caused dissociation- an unpleasant feeling and clearly not what she's looking for since she wants a good experience of being fucked). If anything, she wants more control- the sex worker provides control of the variables- he will likely be skilled, patient, safe and emotionally not involved which is all what she's looking for. This is a woman who wants a controlled environment.
I think what has happened is that people are looking at the words "get fucked" and assuming that implies some sort of desire for submission. In my own experience, I tend to say I fucked someone or they fucked me regardless of position- b/c in the het world (at least with our natural junk) it's always the woman being penetrated, the woman who is "getting fucked BY the man" etc. She appears to be using the language like that- the man will fuck her. I find it sad that people read dominance into that simply because he's the one who has a dick. If she'd used the words "I want to have a good fuck" rather than "I want to get well and truly fucked by..." then no one would be interpreting those words to mean submission. As there is nothing else in the letter that indicates she wishes to cede control and in fact plenty that indicates the opposite, I see no reason to hyperfocus on the "get fucked" part.
She appears to be looking for a vanilla experience, which yes involves a woman being fucked by a man- as she has the pussy and he has the dick.Yes due to her lack of experience, she would like a man who is skilled (more experienced than her) so that they aren't awkwardly fumbling around. And yes, she'd like to focus on her own pleasure, not feel responsible for his. Hence the sex worker- This does not mean she's looking to be dominated.
I agree a sex worker would be a good option for her. I agree it is risky. I agree also that since it is risky and illegal and expensive, she'd have a better time posting exactly what she wants online. I think she should be extremely vague about her csa status- there are people who fetishize such things or who want to be the hero to save her. She should probably just post that she's an older independent professional woman who has not focused on her sexual side much in her life (leave the reason open) and would now like a FWB who is conscientious and respectful of boundaries, etc. Then she's going to have to do what everyone does- screen responses, chat with them, arrange first time meetings in public places with them, pick a few that seem like there's chemistry, have some experiences (good and not so good but hopefully not bad) until she finds someone who is a good candidate for an ongoing FWB. This is a drag and it sounds like the LW may not be totally ready for that since she's still in the phase of wishing for a thing to just appear somehow without any consequences. When I feel this way, I play my thought experiment where I design the perfect brothel for women- because wouldn't we all like skilled safe no consequences sex on the ready at any time? The fact is, it doesn't exist, and part of LW's healing process is going to be to honestly evaluate which set of consequences she finds the most acceptable. The legal risks of a sex worker? The possibility for disappointment/awkwardness/dissociation with a hookup? The emotional complications and times investments of actual dating? There's no easy answer.
Those of you talking about her getting black out drunk or her wanting to be dominated in a D/s thing- I have no idea what letter you are reading.
Lava, sort of like with the conversation the other day, you are the common denominator in your experience. I agree that most of the men I've been with, at least since I was very young, have had a basic set of sexual skills- it's not a sport nor rocket science- and since I likewise have a basic sex of sexual skills, we can generally have a good time.
This is not the LW's situation as she is inexperienced. As an adult, you expect that other adults have a certain amount of experience. If I were to encounter a man right now who fucked like my high school boyfriend did (lacking much stamina, cumming very fast, scared to touch my pussy because he didn't know what to do with it, bad kisser, rushing through foreplay, etc) then I wouldn't be able to do much with him. This woman likewise probably worries about her own lack of skills. It's a conundrum b/c you acquire these things slowly through experience, and if you don't have those learning curves at the typical times in life, it can be harder to have casual sex in the adult future. You need a few encounters with someone who knows what they are doing who will be patient. Saying that you want someone who is more experienced and skilled than you doesn't mean you want to be dominated. Vanilla sex doesn't mean no one is ever assertive or no one takes the lead. She very clearly needs that. It just means that no one is actually dominating the other, no one is ceding control to the other, no one is playing around with power- if D/s simply means one person takes the lead, the term becomes useless.
I'm sorry to go on about this, but it's pretty alarming to me actually that at least two of you are reading this letter this way. THis is a woman who is a childhood sexual abuse survivor- someone who has been so traumatized by this that adult sexual experiences have actually caused her to dissociate. She is now looking to become a fully sexual adult, she's horny and wants a good fuck, but she hasn't the experience to find it and she needs to guarantee her safety. And somehow people are reading this as a desire to actually CEDE control? To be dominated? It's like the opposite of what she's asking for.
If being assertive and experienced in bed and saying what you want and taking the lead means you are the D in a D/s experience then I'm a fucking femme dom despite having spent my entire life knowing full well I'm as vanilla as they come.
EmmaLiz @103, thank you. See, both of us did read the letter.
I agree completely with what you are saying, except that I don't know where you are reading a desire to get drunk. I don't see this in her letter or in the comments, aside from my advising that she and her lover limit themselves to one drink. This is proactive advice based on the common strategy of dealing with nerves with Dutch courage, which as you say will be counterproductive to her being in control of the situation, which is why I mentioned it. Harriet was talking about her "ceding control" but I read that in a BDSM sense -- she wants to hand it over to the man to run the fuck. Which may or may not be an accurate interpretation of "I want to get fucked" -- my interpretation lines up with yours -- and even if she does want him to run the fuck, being the passive partner, the fuckee, does not equate to being dominated. As you say, she may just want him to take the lead because she herself is inexperienced. But agreed there is nothing inherent in "getting fucked" that rules out vanilla sex, and I also think it's sad that some people cannot envision good sex without a D/s element! Sure, kink has come into the mainstream, but that does not mean all sex is kinky. That kind of negates the meaning of the word.
As a veteran of online dating (I have met several lovely women this way, including current SO of 9 years) I can say "fear of hooking up with a rapist" is vastly overblown. You have the opportunity to message back & forth for an extended period of time and then meet in a safe, public place for a face-to-face, so, by the time you decide to hit the sheets you oughta have a pretty good idea of what you're getting. Parameters can be laid out in the message phase if you're too unassertive/shy to ask/demand for something face-to-face. I know women get swamped by messages from creeps/losers but none of the ones I have met said they had any trouble sorting out the chaff from the wheat. I'm also thinking that a FWB situation would be OK with quite a few men, even on vanilla sites like Match, and especially OKCupid, etc). It's probably safer than a novice choosing a "professional" beacuse (and I have NO experience here, just using logic) it would seem that advertising your "wares" as a pro would be a good way for a predator to meet inexperienced women like LW to take advantage of them. NOT saying that happens a lot, but caveat emptor.
There's a part of D/s in the popular conception of "getting fucked", in that the man takes the lead and is able to read exactly what his partner wants. Unfortunately it's just a small part, which puts people like SMASH in a bind; the men who do tend to have lots of experience with things like extensive pre-scene discussion and regular low-key check-ins will have learned it from extensive exposure to the kink community, but SMASH's basic desires are vanilla enough that hardcore kinksters probably aren't interested. Especially because, if you're experienced and considerate and an active member of the kink community, you probably have enough sex available that some random woman's offer isn't likely to be appealing on its own.
@105: "It's probably safer than a novice choosing a "professional" beacuse (and I have NO experience here, just using logic) it would seem that advertising your "wares" as a pro would be a good way for a predator to meet inexperienced women like LW to take advantage of them."
A pro who advertises themselves as "newbie friendly" would likely set off many alarm bells, and also likely stop being a worker altogether because " newbies looking to gain sexual experience" likely isn't enough of a population to make a living off of even for women servicing men. A worker who advertises themselves in general will have to deal with people of all experience and savviness levels, and is about as likely to be doing it for nefarious reasons as any other workman type whose job requires access to your home. i.e: Not likely.
Also, while your average woman nowadays does know that someone met off a dating site is no more likely to be a rapist than someone met elsewhere out in the wild (a chance, incidentally, that is not zero), SMASH knows that she's bringing a big ask and a broken picker. I think that qualifies as a special case.
CT @106 "A pro who advertises themselves as "newbie friendly" would likely set off many alarm bells"
It depends on the niche. Just FYI, in the "Transwomen sex workers who have dicks and market themselves to hetero men", "newbie friendly" is pretty standard in the advertisement texts.
Ah BDF you are right. Harriet said she should get smashed and get fucked with some instruction beforehand- I thought he was saying she should actually 'get smashed' and hence the need for instruction ahead of time. But now I see that smashed is her acronym and Harriet just meant "smashed' as in be pounded by dick I guess which seems sort of gross to me but whatever I guess Dan thought it was funny.
BTW if it's different in other parts of the world, in the US (or at least everywhere I've lived) "getting smashed" is slang for getting drunk- and I've never heard it used as slang for being fucked. Hence my confusion but I see this was entirely my interpretation. Given that confusion, I am far less alarmed by the advice! I thought he was saying this could be a way for her to cede control.
I agree that the chances of hooking up with a rapist are very slim. However "fear" of it is a feeling. People are in fact afraid of violence- the risk vs the benefit sometimes doesn't add up.
Personally I have not really been afraid of violence or rape during a hookup. What unpleasantness I've experienced has more been from the way some men act like they've gotten away with something the moment the fuck is over- they get all shit eating grin and dismissive afterwards despite having been really fun and chill beforehand- sometimes this switch over happens DURING the hookup and you realize you are with a man who is not just out seeking mutual fun but instead was feeling like a player- and he has to act like he's won something. This was the most common unpleasantness, still rare but annoying enough to make me a bit defensive. The second biggest fear I had while hooking up was that a guy was not going to leave me alone afterwards- it's why I very rarely let a man know where I lived. Some men will keep calling you or texting you afterwards, even if you explicitly ask them not to. When I was still in college, I had a man I hooked up with and brought home with me show up at my house unannounced a few days later, very late at night- the audacity of that scared me. He went away when I told him to, but it still felt a little threatening. Third- you do worry a bit about the drama involved with entangling personal lives- I think this fear is common to men and women. So as I've stated before, I had a casual and ongoing FWB when I was quite young who turned out to be married with children in another state. Finally, you do have to worry a bit that a man isn't going to respect your limits- though again as with other things I found this more common when I was quite young- guys that would push your head toward their dick and that sort of thing that just kills the mood and puts you in a position of having to decide if you are going to suck it up and continue or end the scene and risk pissing them off. Etc. All these are things that concerned me, not random rape. IN my own experience, as I got older and more experienced and better able at filtering men and being safe, these things stopped happening- some could be age related, some could be my own filtering, not sure.
BTW Donny I do agree with your advice.
I'm just reiterating that what the LW wants really doesn't exist. There are no perfectly safe consequence free pleasure guaranteed options. She's going to have to put herself out there and choose which set of complications she finds the most acceptable- it's what we all have to do. Certain practices can make things safer, but in the end she's going to have to decide if she wants to deal with the complications involved with sex workers, FWBs, dating, online hookups, whatever- there is no fantasy brothel serving up experiences in real life. She's just going to have to evaluate all the choices and make her pick- to me it seems like she's looking for a workaround, and that does not exist.
No Fan , she wants to be well and truly fucked. That is not the same as a good fuck. A good fuck for some, can be slow and mutual etc. the LW doesn’t want this, does she? No she wants some big mountain man with velvet gloves to give her one good thumping. Where he, the gentle brute, let’s her know who owns the phallus and she can just sit back and be well and truly fucked.
She isn’t looking for a gentle lay, let’s agree on that.
Given that D/s is a mainstream activity after those books came out, I see it as a continuum. Some, who really have a strong D/s kink, no she doesn’t need a man like this. She needs one on the lower end, and one who is playing and it’s not a deep rooted kink. Lots of those around, those playing at D/s.
You’re right EL, I don’t think she’s looking to worry about his needs, which makes her wishes even more specific.
MrD @112, that’s horrible. That sounded like such a safe and sensible approach, and the poor guy killing himself over it. Sex work has forever been here, why not make it a safe alternative for all.
If they want to point the finger of blame, point it at God. He gave us humans strong sexual desires, and Jesus’s friend was a sex worker. If that isn’t recommendation, what would they need.
Disagree Lava. Well just means good. Truly just means for real, as opposed to the bad sex she's experienced in the past. Honestly - mountain men brutes velvet gloves owning the phallus, this is a lot of specificity for a very generalized statement. She's only been with two people in her life. With both she was not interested nor satisfied nor comfortable to even say what she liked, and one was abusive. So in her opinion, she's never "truly" been fucked- she's looking to have a good sexual experience with someone who is skilled. I honest to god do not see how anyone can interpret that to mean she wants rough or dominant sex.
D/s is not a mainstream activity. Just because some books were popular and just because people like to fantasize about it does not mean it's mainstream. D/s is a kink. Moreover, D/s does not mean "a not gentle lay". D/s is about power play and dominance. It doesn't simply mean a fantasy of an assertive skilled Casanova type who knows how to take his time and please a woman and leave her satisfied. That's simply an assertive lover who leads the fuck. Which yes is probably what she wants. This is not a kink. Do you guys think that anything other than delicate gentle loving careful sex is not vanilla? Cmon. That's so restrictive as to make words like "kink" or "dominant" absolutely meaningless.
Again I find it disturbing that people think a person who has been twice abused and is seeking a situation in which she is in control of the variables and twice mentions how she's concerned for safety actually just wants to be pounded by a macho guy who shows her who's boss.
EL, you forget the porn she’s been watching, you forget how randy she is. That’s my interpretation of her words, and those were the words she used. Well and truly fucked.
Like, she doesn’t want Mr Tepid. Ok if I touch you here, do you like it when I do this. She wants a confident take charge man who has some sensitivity, especially if she does speak her truth before they have sex, if not on any profile. Can’t see why checking out fetlife would hurt. People show who they are on that forum.
What Lava? Really I don't understand this conversation. So now watching porn or being horny are not vanilla experiences? What does that have to do with being D/s or wanting someone to be dominant? I assume that most people who enjoy vanilla sex are horny. Most people watch porn. I just really don't know what in the world it is about a woman saying she's horny and wants a good fucking that leads you or Harriet to translate this in your minds that she wants some guy to show her who's boss or dominate her. It's just really weird to me, makes me feel a little sad.
I don't know why we need to put words into her mouth. She wants a guy who is skilled and experienced and will give her a good fuck as she says. What's there that makes you interpret it as a a take-charge man? And why would vanilla mean tepid? Anything that's not kink or dominant is tepid?
I've personally not had good experiences with FetLife. It's hard to post to a more general audience- you have forums that include people from all over the country which seems pointless to me and I can't figure out how to post within my own city specifically in any forum that's active- usually just the same few users dominating over and over again. I might be using it wrong, and anyway I am not disagreeing that she could give any site a try- sure why not. But she shouldn't be looking for a dom when all she wants is a truly good fuck from an experienced skilled guy. There is nothing in her letter to indicate she is interested in any way in power play and quite a bit to indicate that she in fact wants to be in control of many of the variables. I'd say she needs to express herself clearly, chat beforehand, and go for a more typical traditional het hookup with an experienced guy who is confident and positive and respectful- a typical het hookup usually includes the man being the more assertive partner anyway. There's no reason that she needs to seek a dom, and in fact I think that would not go well for either of them. Most doms want a sub right? There's nothing she's said that makes it sound like she wants to cede control or submit. She just wants guidance which is not the same thing as submission.
DonnyKlicious @105: "As a veteran of online dating, I can say 'fear of hooking up with a rapist' is vastly overblown"
How nice for you. As someone who was raped by a person I met through online dating, I can say that one rape does change one's risk assessment.
ChiTodd @106: " someone met off a dating site is no more likely to be a rapist than someone met elsewhere out in the wild (a chance, incidentally, that is not zero)"
Quite a bit higher than zero, really. Fewer than one in ten, probably, but more than one in a hundred.
Shades of control EL, and yes I read she does want to cede some control otherwise she wouldn’t be well and truly fucked. Why is this the sticking point?
My interest is why did she write in at all, she knows sex work is illegal where she lives, she must know about online dating and no doubt fetlife etc. so what is she really asking for here. Either she goes out there and risks it, or she doesn’t.
I return to my first suggestion. Get off the porn so she can calm down and think straight.
Sorry that happened to you Erica.
LavaGirl @124 - thank you. It was a decade ago, and I'm fine, but I speak up when I see people dismissing risks faced by other people.
Hiw to avoid that risk Erica.
Donny and other men could help here. What does this woman, or any woman, look for in a profile to weed out the dangerous ones. What wording did you use Donny, you’re a solid guy, how does this woman find one of you.
I dont' see why a truly good fuck is synonymous with ceding control, nor why seeking experience (or even assertiveness or guidance) has anything to do with ceding control. Just generally, that makes no sense to me, but specifically in this letter, where she writes about how she is looking for control of the situation, it seems especially wrongheaded.
But more interesting is your question of why she wrote in at all which is what I've been trying to go on about. She's looking for a fantasy fix- which is why I started out talking about dreaming up a brothel. What she wants doesn't exist. She wants a perfectly safe consequence-free solution to her problem of her current very horny unpartnered situation. Part of her healing (from both her childhood and adult abuse) is going to be learning to accept that there is not an answer- write as many advice columnists as she wants- there is not a solution that will give her what she wants. If there were, we'd all be doing that.
She has to face real life and decide what she wants to do. Sex is going to be a little awkward- learning curves and new experiences usually are. An experienced confident lover will help but it's not going to be perfect. And finding that man is not going to be so simple as ordering up a sex worker. Sure, she could do that (and maybe should!) but that also has a set of consequences which she outlined. I think the advice she actually needed was for someone to set her straight and talk about what her real life choices are, what sets of consequences they have, what she can realistically expect at first, tips about how to minimize risk, etc. All stuff she probably already knows but she's still hoping there's an ANSWER out there. "If you do X, then you get to have Y." This is not the case, and part of healing is accepting that.
Jesus woman. Her words are not to get a good fuck. Her words are to be well and truly fucked. Sounds a little cede control to me.
Erica@122~ Sorry that happened to you, but my point is that you can do a lot of screening on a dating site as opposed to just randomly meeting people in a bar, etc. obviously nothing is 100% failsafe as your terrible experience shows.
Lava@126~ What do you look for to weed out the bad apples? Intelligent writing. Straightforward answers. Respectful conversations. Recognition that meeting/talking to strangers is a somewhat risky and problematic thing for a woman and a willingness to do whatever she needs to make her feel comfortable. Meeting in a public place. He DOESN’T press for personal information like your real name, address, phone, etc.until you are totally comfortable giving it. (That’s the best thing about dating sites, you can stay anonymous and use a screen/assumed name as long as you want and still communicate- even after you’ve fucked in a neutral/kinda ppublic site like a hotel) Perhaps a referral from a female friend if you are really leery. As I said before, nothing is 100% failsafe, but the assholes of life are generally fairly easy to spot and the “Ted Bundy” charming serial killers thankfully rare. I guess the best advice is to listen to that inner voice that’s telling you, “Something isn’t quite right about this guy.”
What she wants does exist, here in Australia. I’ve read weekend mags articles about male sex workers who make very good livings servicing rich older women.
This one guy interviewed had clean and safe environments where he does his work, and the women loved him. Payed up front so no bs fantasy can occur he’s there for any other reason. He charged enough, so I assume he gives the women just what they ask for. I’m sure there’s private spaces around in our big cities, brothels for women.
That doesn’t help this woman, unless she wants to travel to a country where sex work is legal and accepted as an ordinary part of modern society. No big deal.
Thanks Domny, they are good tips.
Lava@126 continued~ “...What wording did you use...”
Confident, straightforward language. This is who I am, this is what I’m looking for. Don’t say inexperienced right off the bat, do a little weeding out of the obvious rejections first and then bring it up with the likely candidates... “I haven’t dated much, I hope that won’t be a problem for you, I’m willing to learn and really want to try a few new mutually agreed upon things!”
Play up your positives! “Not looking to get into a “serious” relationship right away, but somewhere down the line if we’re having a ton of fun, I might not rule it out” might help weed out a few of the “I’ll fuck anything that squats to take a piss” types by making it sound like you don’t have that attitude.
The wording I used on my profile and in my responses to profiles I liked was, I tried to be complimentary and mention a few of the things I liked about her, and most of all, (I know those of you who read my posts will be shocked) I tried to be funny. I also tried to be DIFFERENT from all the standard cookie-cutter “love long walks on the beach at sunset” cliches.
I don't like giving women advice on how to stay safe from rapists, because I think that leads to blaming women who get raped, as if they forgot some tips from the the "stay safe" list.
if someone asks for advice, sure, and I guess LavaGirl did here. So fine.
But mostly I prioritize reassuring women who got raped that they did nothing wrong, they did not miss any signs, and it's not their fault.
DonnyKlicious @129 - "charming serial killers [are] thankfully rare."
Hmm. I'll agree that charming serial killers of white middle-class women are thankfully rare. But non-obvious killers of minority trans women aren't rare enough. And non-obvious rapists of white middle-class women aren't so rare either. Is it important to you to believe that dating isn't actually risky for women?
Erica, I just said @129 that I recognize it’s risky.
But life is inherently risky. Be aware, but don’t let fear rule your life.
Of course it’s not their fault Erica, and getting tips doesn’t mean some men who are very clever at playing Mr Caring.
Sorry, bad composition; some men are very good at playing being Mr Caring, when in fact they are not, that’s when intuition comes in and meeting in public and checking someone out in person before any private meetings occur.
Erica, it’s never the raped person’s fault, no matter how the rape came about. There are psychopaths out there who are very skilled at lying.
68-Harriet-- Oh, I suppose you're right that if deep down I think that paying a sex worker is something that should be alright only after other avenues have been exhausted.
For everyone making analogies to straight people going to gay bars: no. First, there is nothing at all wrong with straight people going to gay bars. There IS something wrong with straight people behaving like assholes at gay bars; it's not the presence, it's the behavior. Treating the gays like a zoo attraction; being a loud, drunken bachelorette party mess that takes over the entire space and sexually harasses/assaults gay men; flipping out if someone of the same sex/gender hits on you; hitting on people who are unlikely to be into you; THOSE are problem behaviors. Spending money at queer businesses while NOT being an asshole is great.
Second, a sex toy shop is basically just like any other retail business. It makes no sense to segregate those businesses in the ways it might make some sense to (soft-)segregate bars; a customer is a customer, and people are there to buy gear, not primarily (and mostly not even secondarily) to find partners with whom to use that gear.
Something unintended can happen when too many straight people go to gay bars, as in, the bar usually ends up going straight, but that seems a natural (d)evolution with no blame to be assigned, besides its being impractical to try to decide what constitutes "too many".
I overlap with Mr Horstman a fair amount, opting to frame it as understanding and accepting the norms of the space. This ties in to my objection to cramming more and more different groups into one "unified" community, which result in natural clashes in GRSM (a term that is gaining momentum as a replacement for The Acronym, seen as more inclusive and clearly lacking the need to tack on any additional letters or numbers) spaces.
@ 7 dadddy: That's dismaying and disappointing. Hypocritical AF, too: Harris fervently favours abortion rights, but thinks a woman can't consent to sex for pay, so she pushed So she's not actually opposed to legally degrading and policing women's autonomy and bodily sovereignty, but yes she is, but no she isn't. Take a look: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kzdp39/kamala-harris-decriminalizing-sex-work-fosta-sesta
Griz is late in the game from her first week in the local musical production of Nunsense, but...
@100: Wa-HOO!! to BiDanFan for scoring a double whammy--first, the Lucky @69 Award, and now the coveted Hunsky. Savor your decadent riches.
The Double Whammy (@169, or @100+ @69 = Hunsky + @69) is only 26 comments away.
Bi? Lava? Who's up for it? :)
I'm just grateful that Trumpty Dumpty and my beloved father don't share the same birthday.
Only twenty six.. !!
hi Grizelda. Congrats on your new musical adventure.
I do think I have cosmic book finding powers, Grizelda. Down on the coast at my mothers, visiting her in the home for her late nineties bday.
I was checking a book out online before leaving home, a biography of Montgomery Clift written in the seventies, and it was expensive as. I get down here and guess the fuck what happened! Yes. It was there, at ten dollars, in the second hand shop I check out each visit. I loved his acting. Did you ever see the Misfits.. him and Marilyn and Clark Gable.
CMD, I just remembered I didn’t answer you before. No. I don’t watch soccer, though I think it’s the most skilful game. Mainly just the men’s tennis, and mainly only Nadal. Some rugby league football where they crash and slide and have such strong bodies.
I mean the most skilful ball sport. That I know of. Must be millions of ball sports I don’t know of.
EmmaLiz @111: Echoing all of this. This is probably what SMASH wants to avoid. Crap sex with crap men. The odds are very high, and she's not experienced enough to weed wheat from chaff the way EmmaLiz and I are. Even with experience, sometimes instincts fail. I'm not surprised SMASH is thinking instead of going with someone Yelp-reviewed.
Lava @114: You just can't back down, ever, can you? Let's agree that she wants to be well and truly fucked, whatever in her mind that means. Since that's what she said. Jeez.
Lava @118: She never described the porn she's been watching. Much porn is vanilla. Vanilla people get horny. I don't know why watching porn and being horny rules out wanting vanilla sex in your mind. Yes, YOUR interpretation is that she wants a dominant man. That is your interpretation only, there's zero evidence to support it. "Well and truly fucked" means that the sex is completely satisfying. Why can't you accept that this might mean different things to different people? This is YOUR sticking point. She wants good sex, however she defines "good." I'm not sure why you feel such a strong need to prove to us all that your vision of "good sex" must be the same as hers. I mean, if I said "I want a hot guy" you couldn't argue that what I want is a man with a hairy chest, because to you that's "hot" but to me it's the opposite. You don't know what SMASH thinks it means to be well and truly fucked (nor do I), and I don't know why you're so sure you do.
EricaP @122: I'm sorry that happened to you as well. :(
Thanks Griz! I hope I do not get post @169, that would just be greedy.
I agree with BiDanFan@149 that 'being be well and truly fucked' doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, including people who watch (we have no idea what kind of) porn. Doesn't always mean being dominated.
Doesn't necessarily mean not varying the rhythm and force at all (that might leave a lot on the table). Probably does mean abundant pounding, no shortage of thorough johnsoning...but variety has it's advantages too.
I can’t back down Fan, pot meet kettle.
Nothing to back down about. That’s how I see it, given the words she used. She wants to be well and truly fucked.. it’s not I want to well and truly fuck. From her words I deduced she wants a more passive role in the story, which is a lower level D/s, which all the kids are trying. It’s a mainstream kink now, it has a gradient.
She doesn’t want some guy who has a deep seated kink, rather a player, just for the bedroom and who is also a sensitive man to her past experiences. Hence I asked Donny, how does one find such a man, he being one as I see it. Not that other men here aren’t. I know for sure though that Donny is solid.
The men here, the ones who share their sexual selves, often show their versatility, ability to play at. That’s the sortof guy she needs, is all I was saying.
Based on the words she used in her letter.
Not saying she doesn’t want to set the scene, create a safe space where sex happens, and somehow tell the man she is wounded sexually.
Once all that is set, she then wants to be well and truly fucked.
So to BE fucked one needs to be passive the whole fucking time, without even interludes of being active/assertive?
Lava@151 ~ I’m blushing...
@105 DonnyKllicious: You're braver than I am about online dating. More power to you, and I'm glad you've got a wonderful LTR out of it. Congratulations.
@145 LavaGirl: Yes--I have seen Montgomery Clift--what a handsome man!--in The Misfits with Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe (1961--I think that was her last film--and maybe the last one for Gable, too), and in a Hitchcock film from 1953, I Confess, in which Clift played a priest wrongly accused of murder.
@152 curious2; I agree. In contrast to the LW, to BE fucked sounds awful to me, like one might as well just lie there like a blow up doll and take what comes next (pun unintended).
We're getting closer to that wildly coveted Double Whammy Award (@169)! Tick...tick...tick....
No one doesn’t have to be passive the whole time. Of course she will move her body in response. Heavens, how difficult a few words can seem.
She may even end up cowgirl style.
It’s an attitude of being fucked, that I’m surprised my fellow women have put up such a fight with me about. It’s an energy a man some men can generate because they are the ones with the cock. You had to be there.
If a gay man had written in, using those words, would there have been the same conflict then.
Lava @151: I don't back down when I'm right, but I do back down when it's pointed out that I have made unsupported assumptions, as you have done here. The last time I used the term "well and truly fucked" it was to compliment a FWB on a marathon session that left me feeling a bit sore, but sated, the following day. She's not a kid and you can read whatever you want into a letter, doesn't make words that aren't there magically pop onto a page.
Curious2 @152: No.
Lava @155: Why are you surprised? Her attitude is that she's desperate for some good sex, desperate enough to pay for it. That's what I get out of the letter. I have been there, honey, and I can tell you I was not being dominated without my knowledge this whole time I had a dick in me. "Well and truly" is subjective and simply means she wants the sex she gets to meet her standard of great sex. You are the one who's putting up a fight about what you think she must mean by it.
My question was rhetorical; I intended to point out that I think LavaGirl is doing a bit of projecting.
Curious2 @158: Well quite.
The reason I'm pushing back here is this idea that it is not possible to be "well and truly fucked" without some element of BDSM. That vanilla sex cannot be satisfying. For anyone. This sounds disturbingly like Andrea Dworkin's view that PIV sex is inherently an act of male dominance over women. Horseshit. SMASH might mean by "well and truly fucked" that she wants a man to take her roughly. She might mean that she wants a man with the stamina to fuck for hours. She might mean that she wants a dozen orgasms. She might mean that she wants a big cock that will leave her pleasantly sore. We don't know and it seems bizarre to argue one particular interpretation -- particularly when -it doesn't matter-. Hopefully she will communicate what she means by "well and truly fucked" to her lover, and he will happily provide that for her.
If a gay man had written in that he wanted to be well and truly fucked, I would assume he's a bottom, not that he's a sub looking for a dom.
Agree with 159. The reason it matters to me is not just that though, but the fact that thinking this way about the language used to describe the junk that het people (mostly) have means that you must interpret a woman who wants a really good fuck to mean she wants to cede control which is complete and total hetnorm bullshit and dangerous in particular to someone in this situation whose actual words describe how she wants to control an environment to a certain extent and yet still gets interpreted that she wants to be dominated.
"I don't think everyone finds the difference between reality and play as confusing as you do."
I think if there's any sex negativity here it's coming from your one dimensional view of it.
In any case, all those latest attempts to get the horse(s) to drink give me another Japan-related flash back: "Good ruck!"
For those uninterested in participating in our weekly SL Lucky Numbers game, you can avoid the upcoming @169--or any numbers ending in "69" or "00". CMD @164, feel equally free to decline.
For those who want to play and love it like I do, this week's Lucky Double Whammy Award winner (@169) IS.......(stay tuned!).
@122 EricaP: I'm really sorry that happened to you, Erica. Rape has been a game changer for me, too.
Daddy, Harriet said she was looking to "cede control" and Lava twice said she was looking for something with a D/s element and repeatedly that she was looking to be dominated. She also made very specific statements that well and truly fucked means she wants a man who shows her who's boss and who owns the phallus.
Also both you and Lava (and not me at all) have decided that the opposite of this is very specific bullshit about velvet gloves, Kenny G, roses or whatever sort of romantic tender nonsense seems to be the only alternative in your minds to a woman wanting to be dominated. THAT dichotomy is what I call hetnorm bullshit.
A few more things because your post is so fucking insane.
1) Raw uninhibited sex is not the same thing as ceding control nor D/s. Blurring these distinctions makes the kink meaningless. 2) She might want manhandling as you say, she might be a switch. My point is that there is nothing in her words to imply that and the assumption that this is what she wants because she says she wants to be well and truly fucked is dangerous, especially for a childhood sex abuse survivor who is inexperienced and has the tendency to dissociate during sex. I assume that in real life, you would talk to a woman about it before you started grabbing her hair and holding her down and not simply assume that she wants this because she wants raw uninhibited sex. 3) I'm equally as disturbed by your (and Lava's) apparent misunderstanding of what vanilla sex is, that it implies that a woman wants passive romantic tenderness. Vanilla means lacking kink. It does not mean romance, slow, tender, or any of this. You can have raw uninhibited sex that is vanilla, you can be well and truly fucked without being dominated. You can even be the more assertive partner in such a scene and it's still vanilla. 4) I'm likewise annoyed at your shitty attitude towards romantic sex. Those things sound boring to me too, but they are no moreso stupid or boring as anything else. If they are someone's preferences, I would hope they'd find a lover who would provide those experiences just like I'd hope someone would find someone to slap them around if they want that, etc. I get really sick of the sneering at romance while expecting everyone to be openminded about everything else. Regardless, there is nothing this woman said to indicate that she wants romance or tenderness, but the opposite of that is not D/s.
Dadddy @162: "As far as I can tell, no one said it did." Lava said it did. That's her only evidence to support her theory that this woman is looking to be dominated.
I agree with EmmaLiz @161. I'm also a firm believer in Occam's razor. This woman has written to a kink-positive sex advice columnist. If she were looking to be dominated, why on earth wouldn't she have said so? Why would she have mentioned ideas like Tinder and bars, which are popular options for casual sex, and not Fetlife and fetish clubs, which are options for kink? Why would she ask about sex workers rather than pro Doms? It's completely plausible that this woman means exactly what she said -- she wants to be fucked. The verb "fuck" is slang for penetrative sex, it is not slang for domination. There seems no need to conclude that she means something else, and send her in a different direction from what she specifically said she is looking for.
Dadddy @163 etc: Vanilla sex is like a Hallmark movie? THAT is a whole lot of sex negativity. "I have no problem judging people for it" -- but you have a problem with EmmaLiz judging people. Okay. I laugh because I think even Lava would agree that "stuff like being held in place, manhandled, fucked hard, slapped on the ass, scruff hair pulled, hand around neck" IS light BDSM, and you do NOT do these things without asking. It is not sex negative to say that one cannot just assume one's partner is OK with being hurt. Vanilla sex is sex and you are being extremely sex negative here. Your preferences are fine so long as you only practice them with others who share them. NO ONE gets a trophy. It's sex, not rugby.
""before you started grabbing her hair and holding her down"
I'm sorry for you if this is how you imagine nonverbal communication works."
That's exactly how YOU described nonverbal communication working @162. As a Dominant, let me ask you how you would feel if someone started doing these things to you without your consent?
Vanilla sex does not mean lacking imagination. People who prefer vanilla sex might have plenty of imagination, they might have envisioned a plethora of scenarios before deciding that these just seem like an awful lot of work when the best part of sex is enjoying someone else's body and giving/having orgasms. I'm sorry you've had such bad vanilla sex in your life that you have this opinion of it. But not everyone needs to drown their food in hot sauce, some like the taste of the food itself. That does not make them boring or deserving of your contempt.
Also, Dadddy, you're a hypocrite. We didn't judge your knee sock fetish. You damn well should have a problem with yourself for judging others for preferring pain-free sex. Lose that attitude and become a better human being.
Daddy, we aren't talking generally here. We are talking about an inexperienced woman with a history of both childhood sexual abuse and spousal abuse who has a history of dissociating during sex due to trauma. And you don't think it would be dangerous to just ASSUME (based on no actual words of hers) that she wants to be held down, slapped, hands held around her neck, hair pulled etc? These are your interpretation of her words. At this point, you are just being an asshole.
BTW this exchange is a really good response to both Donny's above and an illustration of why the LW might prefer a sex worker- though I think she can get the same result from careful screening responses to a very specific profile. If you just generally hook up with someone and tell them you want to be well-fucked, then while you are unlikely to be abused (though that does happen, as Erica points out and as the LW has experienced), it's less uncommon that someone will interpret your words without seeking clarification to mean that you want to be roughed up, slapped, strangled, have your hair pulled, etc. Luckily none of these things have ever happened to me without my consent. I did have a man on the first time we ever hooked up put his hands around my neck while he was kneeling above me jacking off- this meant I'd have had a hard time moving away as his thighs were sort of straddling me. It wasn't really hard, but I couldn't move well and there was enough pressure that I had to think about breathing, none of which is fun for me, I like to breathe, I don't like pain, I tend to be more dominant anyway. It was just a few seconds- I sort of flicked his hands with my fingers and he took the hint and moved them, just a pause and we carried on, all was well. I thought it was sort of audacious that he'd do such a thing on a first hook up, especially in a position where I couldn't move or communicate very easily, but I was not actually afraid for my safety as we were in a relatively public place and the sex had been very hot so he was just wrapped up in the moment, we spent a few days togehter and stayed friends online for years so all was well. I mention this to point out the discrepancy between different possible reactions. I get that during the moment, you might try this or that thing when caught up in the passion, and most good lovers will read their partner's response and decide how to proceed. In my case, that finger flick was enough and we moved on because yes it was play (or more likely, just passion- I don't think he really thought about it at all) and not a desire to actually harm me. But the point is that if you are with someone you don't know, you don't actually know until that moment if they are trying to harm you or not. And while Donny is correct that most (almost all) men are not, and while Daddy is correct that play is different from real dominance, in the moment with a stranger with whom you have not communicated first, you actually don't know which you are dealing with. It can be terrifying to be held down and strangled by a stranger- don't you see this? I think some men really don't know what it's like to be with someone much much much stronger than themselves.
But as I said, I was not speaking generally. We are talking about this letter. In the case of this LW, her defense is to dissociate which usually means to shut down- she might not respond by asking you to stop or flicking your hand away- she might just take it in terror. It might be a few minutes before even a good lover realizes she's checked out, and as several people have pointed out, not all lovers are good lovers who care about your experiences. An inexperienced person with a history of traumatic abuse is right to be cautious about how to proceed to find a new lover. People who make quick assumptions about how to interpret her words, especially assuming she wants to play rough despite having never said any such thing, are in fact making dangerous (to her) assumptions. I'd hope that in real life, you'd be more careful. As for the LW, this is why my advice is that she needs to filter very carefully and why she needs to use her words explicitly to state exactly what she wants and what she doesn't. It might take some of the fun out of it, but the fantasy thing that she seeks (that she'll find some guy with zero hassles and be well and truly fucked exactly like she imagines) that doesn't exist. If she wants this, she's going to have to let the fantasy go for a while, state specifically what she wants, communicate, screen out, eventually find a FWB- once they get to know one another, then hopefully she'll be able to get out of it exactly what she wants, but she's going to have to build up towards that, like everyone.
If you find it annoying or sex negative to have to deal with other people's trauma then I highly suggest that you be clear about your intentions and who you date if you are going to play around with BDSM. The whole point of the letter is that this woman is looking for a lover in a safe controlled environment. So the advice to just throw herself out there seems foolhardy to me, especially considering that people will interpret her words to mean she wants to be slapped, roughed up, etc.
EmmaLiz, I continue to agree with you 100%. Anything I could add would just be superfluous to your excellent comments. Why do these forums not have react buttons?
@162, @163, and @169 Dadddy: I disagree.
@169 Dadddy: Congrats on scoring the Double Whammy (Hunsky + @69). Savor your coveted SL riches wisely.
@172 & @173 EmmaLiz: So well said and summarized! I couldn't agree more, as I, too, have had an abusive relationship,and sexual trauma and can relate..
@174 BiDanFan: I agree. EmmaLiz is so amazingly spot on, as are you. Where are the comment react buttons?
Seems to me like you’re claiming “dom” in order to get away with poor communication skills as well as dismissing potentially questionable, inconsiderate behavior as “sexual IQ.”
That you find some women who put up with that is great, but it’s not necessarily the sum up. For me the act of submission is huge on appreciation and trust. Sexual IQ also mean negotiations, setting boundaries, and following through.
Dadddy, there are a plethora of posts from Lava wherein she claims that the phrase "well and truly fucked" implies that she wants to be dominated. See post @114. I am not "hung up" on anything besides the fact that there are several possible interpretations of the phrase, and that nowhere in the letter did this woman state that she is looking to be dominated. I am not denying that many hetero women enjoy playing the submissive. I am denying that this particular woman said anything of the sort.
Re non-verbal asking, you say "girlfriends." In an established relationship it is not necessary to ask every time for someone one knows one's partner likes. This is not that situation. Why, Dadddy, do you think this discussion is about you somehow?
And re pain, spanking causes pain. Hair pulling causes pain. (Someone did that to me against my wishes and I ended up with whiplash.) Those were two of your suggestions, not mine.
And re imagination, Lava is quite right that BDSM is in the popular culture now. It takes no more "imagination" to spank someone's ass or hold them down than it does to put on some lingerie or light scented candles. Your sexual style is not inherently superior. Some people do suck in bed; holding someone down and pulling their hair when they do not want that is my definition of sucking in bed. Like "well and truly fucked," "suck in bed" is subjective. CMD is right that being good in bed means being in tune with one's lover, not trying to win some sort of nonexistent trophy. For this particular woman, being good in bed would mean NOT PUSHING HER in any way, given her history of trauma and tendency to disassociate. You're arguing with people who, unlike yourself, are able to grasp that someone who isn't them might have different needs and preferences and not merely project their own onto everybody.
*for something one knows one's partner likes.
Also, do you really not see your own hypocrisy? "I love dominance, but I am not at all into giving or receiving pain." Then a sadist or masochist would say that you suck in bed. Would that be fair for them to say? Does that make you prudish, lazy, withholding and repressed, as you describe people who don't like the things you do? Of course not. Your preferences are valid and so are everyone else's. It's called compatibility, not "sucking in bed."
Once more, I am not against female submission; I am against presumptions of female submission, and I am against assertions of male superiority in the disguise of dominance. CMD is right that there's often a fine line between Dom and asshole. Doms I have no problem with, but in this thread you're crossing the line.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.