laurieann

Guy: You're overthinking it. It's easy to keep a Dom happy, if you're dedicated. You follow instructions. You don't complain when his cock is tearing you apart. You suck him for hours.
Guy: It's not rocket science.

Need. Base, primal, whimpering and begging.

The need to be hurt, to suffer, to cry.

The need to worship, adore and sacrifice... to clean and lick and suck and come... to accept, anything he wants.

Was given a gift of a 12-year-old Peju Cabernet Franc. If you can find it, it's amazing.

I can't believe America is so douchey we had to remake Shameless. Like the original cast from the UK wasn't doing it right. Of course, William Macy is incredible but even better is the guy who has the role originally. The first episode of the original UK version has a scene which contains one of the most brilliantly-written testaments to male seduction I've ever seen.

Of course the scene is intellectual in scope so only certain men will get it.

Had a very happy birthday -- one of the best ever. Even had a marriage proposal. Also learned that some people I assumed cared, didn't at all. Live and learn, I guess.

And, as I think about it, I have not been as noble as I should be. I have hurt another, badly. I failed in my attempts to submit and I caused him pain when I was supposed to be his comfort. There's a lot to improve.

I was reminded of something tonight as I was chatting with a man online. I wrote to him, "My desire for a man begins with how I think of him." I'd forgotten that. But it's true. If I believe in the man, I want him. But there are precious few men in whom I'll ever believe.

So I saw this in another's profile and it actually made my day. I instantly thought of one or two people to whom it applies:

.............O...................Put this
..............\.....O............on your
............../...../.............profile
..............\.....\.............if you
...................../.............know
............O............O......someone
............/......O......\......who really
............\.......\....../......should have
............/........|......\.....been a
...................../.............BJ 

I want to fall in love... but not that namby-pamby, romantic-comedy kind of love.

I want intensity bordering on obsession.

I want darkness and a constantly hard cock.

I want to suck until there seems to be nothing in the world but his cock.

I want sexual insatiability.

I want to be overwhelmed, consumed.

I want to be beneath him... so far that I cease to exist.

I want to adore and worship.

I want never to notice another man in all the world.

I want to serve one cock. I want to worship it.

I want...

The previous journal entry was not an expression of interest in men with or without muscle definition. While I like a man to care about his appearance (some bow to trying to be fit, food brushed from his goatee and a sense of fashion that isn't embarrassing in public), I'm not seeking (nor rejecting) any specific look. The journal entry spoke more of the attitude and motivation behind a look.

Masculinity seems to be a really nebulous thing lately.

There are all these guys that LOOK built so that I think they're manly men but then I learn they're actually taking part in some unspoken beauty contest with narcissism as the prize.

Seriously, these guys send out photos that make it clear THEY want to be the girl in the relationship. There's obvious metro primping that goes on before they arrange themselves in front of the camera in poses once reserved solely for the pinup girls of 40s. The photos scream. "look at me and tell me I'm pretty!" Think: a nudey glamour shot out by the pool complete with a mist filter and the leg propped up in a coy manner so as to hide the penis while simultaneously allowing the oiled muscles to gleam in the sunshine.

When did I become the buyer of the cow? When did I get to start looking over the meat for its aesthetic appeal? What happened to muscles that exist because they're used? And to rugged good looks that take little upkeep? What happened to men?

Just gonna stand there and watch me burn?

That's alright because I like the way it hurts.

Just gonna stand there and hear me cry?

That's alright because I love the way you lie.

Goodbye.

Single now (though it has taken some time to accept it).

Open to exploring what is out there and seeing where it will lead. I'm not needy, though, so I am in no need to rush things.

I seek intelligence, confidence, strength of mind, masculinity, an intense and rabid sexual appetite. a soul and a solid belief system (and most importantly about male dominance and female submission). I should find you attractive but I'm not interested in men who work on their looks more than I do. Pretty boys and club kids tend to bore. They're vapid and narcissistic -- just like their women. If you NEED to be the center of attention of more than the girl who serves you, pass me by.

If you're ageist, racist or a republicant, also... pass me by.

Ask for more details and face photos if you like.

LA

Guy: Women usually complicate; men usually simplify.   She told me that the only time she got away from her thoughts is when I took her
me: I agree
me: submission allows for a cessation of thought
me: but ask her this
me: before she gave up
me: before she gave in and licked your cock clean of another woman's body
me: what conflict did she have to overcome to get there
me: what emotional turmoil
me: because the greater that turmoil is
me: the greater her love and adoration of you
Guy: :)
me: That IS NOT complication
me: that is clarification
me: that is passion
me: and love
me: and what utimately really makes your cock hard
Guy: I can't save this conversation
Guy: Fuck

me:  Or, at least, it is what I assume would make your cock really hard. I could be wrong.

To put it more succinctly:

If you really think poorly of me -- enough to humiliate me -- why pursue me?

If you pursue me -- how could you really think poorly enough of me to humiliate me?

The only way it seems to work is if you feel poorly of yourself first. And, that's cause for therapy -- not a relationship. But, perhaps someone can explain it differently.

I was contacted by someone from here. He seemed very intelligent. Our first few chats went well. Then he began trying to humiliate me -- and it all went awry.

I know I can over think things, but there is a basic flaw in logic to the entire humiliation game. Namely, if a man bothers with a woman (talking with her, trying to get with her, dating her, trying to keep her) he MUST want her in some way. So then, if he wants her, how can he truly think so  badly of her as to make her humiliated? And if he doesn't TRULY think badly of her, how does humiliation work? How can she truly be humiliated? She'd have to believe he thinks badly of her for it to work. And if he does think badly of her, why have her around?

It's a logic argument that I can't make work. I can see wanting improvement in a woman you own. And I can see encouraging that or demanding it. But that is different than humiliation. Encouraging improvement is a positive act. Humiliation is done to tear down. I get that it can be exciting to some people. I just don't understand how it can work. It didn't work with this particular guy -- and I told him it wouldn't, from the start. In the end, he just creeped me out and I stopped communicating with him.

I wonder, is it a case of a guy thinking little of himself and wanting his counterpart to feel as badly about herself? I have been told, in my case, I need to be taken down because I'm too haughty. Well, I can see a guy feeling that way. And I can see him taking steps to correct that in a constructive way so that I am more pleasing. And if I look up to that man and admire his opinion, I'm going to work with him to get past being haughty. But, if the goal isn't to make me better but merely to tear me down and make me feel humiliated, then how does that improve the life of the man who would come to own me? The logic of it doesn't work no matter how I try it.

The first of these isn't humiliation. It seems to work, to me. The rest just confuse me:

I get this:

man thinks highly of himself --->

man finds a woman he thinks is worthy of him --->

man works to own the woman he finds worthy --->

man gets woman --->

man works to make the woman all he wants her to be --->

man is happy.

I don't get:

Man thinks highly of himself --->

Man finds a woman he thinks deserves to be humiliated --->

Man works to own the woman he sees as worthy of humiliation --->

Man gets woman --->

Man does what? Does he begin to improve her once he has this humiliated thing? Or does he continue to humiliate her? Is he happy, either way? Is she?

Or, conversely:

Man thinks highly of himself --->

Man finds a woman he thinks is worthy of him --->

Man seeks to own woman he finds worthy but humiliates her to keep her down --->

Worthy woman doesn't accept the humiliation because she knows her worth --->

Man doesn't get woman.

Or, finally

Man thinks highly of himself --->

Man finds a woman he thinks is worthy of him --->

Man seeks to own woman he finds worthy but humiliates her to keep her down --->

Woman accepts man's humiliation as true and feels humiliated

Man gets woman --->

Man feels... what? That he fooled the woman into thinking she was worse than she is? Does he then believe that? Does it affect her worth to him? Does he suddenly reveal her true worth in his eyes? Does it ruin the game if he reveals he thinks more of her than his humiliation of her suggested?

I get the whole "you're less than me" thing. But, that is true based on biology. Men, in addition to being capable of being just as smart and just as talented as women, also have superior strength and sexual dominance over women. It doesn't require further conditioning for acceptance and it isn't a matter of humiliation. It's just a fact. So, why has this whole aspect of humiliation risen up to do what nature has already done -- place women beneath men? It seriously confuses me.

I believe I have discovered a difference in types of men -- one I didn't understand before.

It seems there is a type of man who is naturally very masculine -- hyper sexual, possessive, aggressive, and controlling...  but ONLY in order to get him what he wants. He will do what he must to keep a woman in line so that he can get what he wants from her. The control can even be tiring to him.

And there seems to be another kind of man that can also be masculine and may be many others things -- sexual, possessive, aggressive, controlling -- but he ENJOYS the power he wields over a woman. He is addicted to control as its own reward, not simply to get what he wants. For this man, control feeds him.

I have now read two profiles wherein men mention wearing "flip flops."

Now I'm sure those two men THINK they're being current in following whatever lame-ass trend is out there (or was out there, 10 years ago). But what they actually communicate is that they're incapable of rising to the level of "manning up."

The first mistake you've made is in thinking male feet are often worthy of being seen -- usually, they aren't. And unless you're on a beach there is simply NO reason to be wearing something that alternately shows your ugly little digits while also rendering you incapable of running, fighting, defending or looking cool. Sure, you look like you don't give a damn what anyone thinks of you. And I'm sure you'd like to think that raises you above the others who seek to impress women. But, let's face it: if you don't give a damn what anyone thinks of you (including the woman you're playing for) then why would should she give a damn about impressing you? And, particularly, why should she feel safe in your company when you've rendered yourself more useless than a guy who showed up to see her barefoot?

ALL you tell a woman by wearing plastic/rubber sandals is (and this is quoting a comedian), "If anything goes down, you're on your own."

In the crush of work and daily responsibilities, it is easy to forget that there is a time to stop arguing, to stop trying to be right, to stop trying to prove a point or prove one's self. Business requires all of those skills. A relationship with a dominant man? Not so much.

Even if I feel I'm right, there is a time to stop. When a man says, "that's enough," it can be hard to change gears and follow his lead. But, it's generally  the best thing to do.

Six-pack abs and hard c*cks are fun to look at and I appreciate the photos. However, they'll never be a substitute for a mind and soul. Ideally, we'll offer one another a package that contains a little of everything: some level of attractiveness, sexuality, mind and soul. In the end, it's all subjective opinion but, generally, the sum of the whole ought to be greater than its parts :).

I point this out because there are a lot of men who seem to think looking pretty is enough to get a girl. That's such a twisted view of masculinity. I can't imagine much that is less applicable to a man's ability to lead than his looks (which is not to say that physical strength and virility aren't important -- they're just not all that is important). And, while I certainly want to find the man I'd be with attractive, no man looks good enough (and, yeah, that includes any celebrity you might think of) to possess or control a woman with his looks alone. Well, I should speak for myself. No man looks good enough to control me with his looks, alone.

FOUR GHOSTS OF THE WHITE HOUSE

One night, George W. Bush is tossing restlessly in his White House bed.  He awakens to see George Washington standing by him. Bush asks him, "George, what's the best thing I can do to help the country?"

"Set an honest and honorable example, just as I did," Washington advises, and then fades away.

The next night, Bush is astir again, and sees the ghost of Thomas Jefferson moving through the darkened bedroom. Bush calls out, "Tom, please! What is the best thing I can do to help the country?"

"Respect the Constitution, as I did," Jefferson advises, and dims from sight................

The third night sleep still does not come easy for Bush. He awakens to see the ghost of FDR hovering over his bed. Bush whispers, "Franklin, What is the best thing I can do to 

help the country?"

"Help the less fortunate, just as I did," FDR replies and fades into the mist.................

Bush isn't sleeping well the fourth night when he sees another figure moving in the shadows. It is the ghost of Abraham Lincoln. Bush pleads, "Abe, what is the best thing I can do right now to help the country?"

Lincoln replies, "Go see a play."

I found this funny though I know Bush never gave one damn about the country. I would, however, like to see his offshore accounts. I bet he cared about those.

In the past, I dated a man who (while I was with him) had many other women. This was agreed upon and largely supported by me. But I figured something out that makes me wonder if such a relationship can work.

Namely, I realize that those times when I wanted him so badly that I would have sold my soul to have him, those times to me were unique in all of my experience. I can still recall a time when he was grinding against me. I was protesting I had to go home -- and I did go home, without being used. To this day I'd still use a time machine to turn back the clock and have him take me (even if it had been on the hood of my car, out in the open).

The thing is, that situation wasn't unique for him. He can recall it, but he has those same moments every weekend he spends picking up women in bars. It was nothing special to him.

Now, he told me that other things about me were unique in his experience -- the way I accepted and supported him, loved and adored him, the way I pleased him (supposedly more than others), the depth of my submission, and  the intellectual connection we had with one another.  Since he lied to me, I doubt even that information, but perhaps it's true. Still, sexuality is one of our strongest drives. And though I support poly activity for a man, I wonder if it can ever support a fully-realized relationship. If the things we appreciate and long for in one another are so different, if those defining moments in our lives aren't shared, can there really be enough ground to lay the foundation for a relationship?

I'm not being bitchy in posting this but, instead, trying to keep us from wasting our time (mine is very limited):

1. While there seem to be some really exceptional younger guys on the site, I doubt younger guy/older girl really works (yep, tried it).

2. Spanking is a huge thing for most guys on this site but I just find it kind of silly and embarrassing. If you really feel I need to be set straight, something far more intense is needed (I stopped taking spanking seriously at 7).

3. While MANY guys here approach a male dominant relationship as though it's a form of some alternative lifestyle choice, I couldn't agree less. This is either who you are or it isn't. A man's power and ability to take control is inherent in the way he's built, His ability to maintain control is inherent in his dominant nature. I was born with a desire to submit. A dominant man is born with a desire to control. If this isn't how it was for you, I doubt there would be much sexual compatibility between us.

4. A man's power is best enjoyed by experiencing it directly. His hands can hold me down. His penis can penetrate and punish.  His backhand can correct. His voice can demand silence. If he's also intelligent and comfortable with his power, his mere look might stop me in my tracks or hold me when I don't wish to be held. This isn't about whips and chains, ropes or racks, toys or torture devices. All those trappings are symbols that mimic or represent a man's power. If you confuse the toys for the real power, you're seriously missing the depth of all of this.

5. The BDSM culture seems intent on maintaining the silly notion that men and women are equal. They put forth the idea that when a woman controls a man she is having the same experience as a man controlling a woman. That's silly. A woman controlling a man is experiencing a mental construct. While I'm sure that's a powerful experience for both, it can't (or almost never can) approach the power a man must feel knowing he can physically control a woman in addition to controlling her mentally and emotionally.
If you believe in basic equality of the sexes, we'd really have little in common where D/s is concerned.

6. There is nothing inherently wrong with a man having and using his superior physical strength with a woman. If you feel there is and we tried to be in a relationship, I'd probably run right over you.

7. A girl fearing what a guy is capable of doing to her is not a perversion of things but a natural and healthy state. It's natural to fear what has the ability to hurt you. It's natural to seek to avoid that consequence. We should have to earn our safety and protection from a man. It isn't a guarantee. If you feel it is, I think you're deluding yourself.

8. Oh, and, if you tell me that a male dominant/female submissive relationship isn't about sex? Well, I'd say you're wrong. When a guy makes a girl want to submit, you can bet sexual desire should follow. And, if he is doing it right, there's an amazing sexual undercurrent in everything that's done. If it isn't about sex -- intense, overwhelming, devouring primal lust then... seriously... you're doing it wrong.

Saw an image of a woman wearing a dog tag that identified her as property of.... I liked it. Much better than a military version.

I had to suffer through a chat first thing this morning with a newbie dom telling me that the difference in male strength over female strength is a mere philosophical belief.

How do people so delude themselves that they cease trusting their own eyes -- all their senses, for that matter? I can't bear it.