April 22, 2012

Unified Theory of Dating

I'm working on a new unified theory of dating. It's going to apply to both vanilla and kinky dating, with appropriate coefficients.

Here's how it goes: in both vanilla and kinkster dating, men attract and retain a girlfriend --or more than one-- based on equation that's roughly = (what's she getting out of it now) + (how does she see things for the future of it) + (where is she at in her life). Men cannot affect that last one, and they can only mildly affect the second one, but they can most certainly affect the first. There's a concept in Pick Up Artist mentality that is basically about "qualifying" yourself to a woman, which involves a bunch of dumb (in the long run) but probably effective psychological cues. All men have to go through this process whether or not they are pick-up artists, the difference being that non-PUAs do it from a standpoint, hopefully, of honesty... (some of the better PUAs are probably honest-ish, too, I just find the idea of being that manipulative pretty distasteful).

Also note: women have to qualify themselves to men, too, it's just a slightly different process. And of course this is all true for non-hetero relationships, in that people do this little dance when dating and throughout the relationship...the exact dynamics I'm describing, though, are pretty hetero at least in my (bisexual) experience.

Anyway, I want to address the "what's she getting out of it right now" part, how it's different and how it's the same in the land of kink vs. vanilla, and things for men to be aware of in any case. Most of this is going to be really obvious, I just want to spell it out to get to my central point.

Let's generalize the "what does she get out of this" thing into four sectors: money, sex, ego and companionship. Money isn't (usually!) literally cash, but rather material comfort and her not paying for anything on a date--and sometimes, yes, dates can be really expensive. Sex means mutually interesting and mutually orgasmic sex. In vanilla-land, mutually orgasmic will pretty much cover it (I guess?)... in kink, sex she finds truly fun and interesting could potentially be incompatible with her date's desires. Ideally, then, she goes on to find someone more compatible, but sometimes she sticks around anyway for the other three sectors...

Ego: well, we all enjoy being flattered, although it can be quite a bit more subtle than that, including her getting to bask in the social status of a man she's with... or perhaps she enjoys someone being (acting) "head over heels" for her. For instance, I suspect that some immature dominant women enjoy a certain amount of groveling* behavior outside of a scene. And companionship is a generic term for basically all the reasons we're friends with people--they're funny, insightful, like the same activities--combined with the warm-fuzzies of a dating-type-relationship. I will note, strongly, that companionship is NOT just a one-sided thing (i.e. she thinks you're clever), it's just as much about her feeling that you appreciate, on a friendship rather than ego-level, her quirks, sense of humor and intellect.

The principle that unites vanilla and kinky dating, pick-up-artists and socially awkward nerds alike, is that the less men offer (or feel competent in offering) companionship and mutually delightful sex, the more they will (sometimes unconsciously) make up for it in offering material comforts and stroking a woman's ego. LIKEWISE, the more a woman is NOT getting her PREFERRED types of sex and companionship from the dating-type-relationship, the more she will only stick around when material comforts and ego boosting are on offer.

Obviously, the healthiest dating situations are based around enjoying each other's** company as adults (i.e. companionship + sex). And the unhealthiest are transactional. And it is abhorrently stupid for a man to walk into a dating situation seeing it as transactional. It's also pretty amazingly stupid in the long run for a woman to stick around in a relationship that's essentially empty (free dinner and ego-cookies), but of course it happens.

Is the transactional dynamic built into our culture? Sure. Am I saying a guy shouldn't buy a woman dinner on the first date? No, actually: in some ways that's a compensation for her time that first evening-- she just spent 4 times as long as he did getting ready for the date (in most cases) and she's socialized to act like he's awesome even if he bores the shit out of her... But going forward, after that first*** date, she will, assuming she's a reasonably well-adjusted adult, not expect her time to be compensated materially...because he's proved his worth in companionship and, when the time is right, mutually fun sex.

I will also posit that if a man CONTINUES to treat the relationship as transactional, he's shooting himself in the foot (balls? heart?) by signalling that he doesn't expect to offer the woman anything more-- either because he's selfish (or misogynist or ignorant), or because he truly doesn't have companionship/good sex to offer. Which, by the way, isn't necessarily a judgmental statement: he could be depressed (doesn't have the self-esteem to be charming), dating out-of-his-league (e.g. likes a woman who's significantly smarter than him [yes, visible light is on the electromagnetic spectrum you jackass]), or is simply overworked (doesn't have the energy to care about her needs). Not that any of these are ideal situations, but they're more about circumstances than about going into things with a dysfunctional philosophy. And, by the way, it's much less insulting/confusing to be up front about such circumstances if possible...

In conclusion, to kinky subbie men especially: dominant women are real actual adult people, who enjoy having real relationships.

---
*As an aside, I do not like watching people grovel out of context, e.g. at dinner, when we're hanging out having a conversation, etc. I like politeness, subbiness and service when it's in an appropriate context because I consider it flirting and it turns me on. ...Ok, a hot waiter who's really good at his job is a turn-on even if he doesn't know (?!?!) that he's flirting. Maybe this is still interconnected with ego?...more complicated than I'm going to cover in a footnote... 

**Grammar nerdery: although "each other's" is not accepted by spellcheck, I'm sticking to it (over each others'), per Bryan Garner/Oxford University Press.

***In my opinion, if you make quite a bit more more than she does, it's nice to offer to buy dinner most of the time, but it's not a "compensation" thing, it's an "otherwise we're going to get burritos again" thing... Likewise one would hope she'd offer to pay most of the time if she's the one making bank. I do this for my friends of more modest means, especially if I want to go somewhere outside of their food-budget. I sincerely hope this is a different dynamic than the "compensating one"...Perhaps I'm being naïve?

January 21, 2012

I have a crush on a probably-vanilla dude

So, I feel conflicted about having this crush on a (likely) vanilla guy, for at least two reasons:

1. there are plenty of hot submissive men who are not in the kind of D/s relationship they'd like, and it seems like a waste to not have a crush on one of them (...at the moment; I certainly have in the past), and
2. should anything happen to bring me close enough to the (likely) vanilla guy, I'm putting us both in a tough spot of me rejecting him for not being kinky enough (despite me already recognizing he's probably not kinky). For that matter, there's also the (likely) possibility of being rejected myself for being too kinky, which doesn't feel great, either.

Anyway, I've been trying to talk myself out of this crush for weeks, as it's somewhat inappropriate in other regards, too. Maybe I just like having a crush; maybe it's just fun to fantasize about going out on a totally vanilla date, and we start making out when he walks me to my car, and then I pinch his nipple just a little too hard and it catches him unawares but he gets all melty... and hot sexytimes ensue...

Update: I still have a crush on this guy. It has been MONTHS. I don't feel like dating (or playing with) anyone else. I am hesitant to ask him out because of situational social dynamics (basically I have to be really-really sure, not just testing the waters; no he's not married). On the plus side, he shows up as a faint blip on my subdar... but maybe this is wishful thinking.

January 2, 2012

Edit to CM profile: Jan 2: w/r/t male doms

Previous* version: "...Experiment with regards to male Doms = successful! I have a few good contacts now. New male Doms may go back to ignoring my profile... no really. Please."

New version: "...Experiment with regards to male Doms = successful! I have a few good contacts now."
Reasons for edits: 1. compassion: learning that not all male dominant-people suck (lol, perhaps poor choice of words...) means I can be more sensitive to randomly-hostile phrasing in my communications; 2. clarity: new version is shorter.
 
...first mistyped as pervious version, lol. Also, if you're not familiar with shorthand, w/r/t = "with regard to", which I didn't know for the longest time until I became a David Foster Wallace fan.

New year's resolution

My new year's resolution is NOT to blog more. Not exactly. Instead, it is: to communicate with clarity and compassion. Part of this may--or may not--be blogging. We shall see. Part of being compassionate is to be aware of my own limitations and priorities, and frankly blogging is not a high priority.
...
There are three people I have at the top of my list for better communication. Two of them are subbie boys that I simply don't have time for, harsh as it sounds, relative to other friends and life goals. One of the reasons I haven't communicated that with them sooner is that it feels bad: these two guys haven't done anything wrong, they are politely persistent in their friendship, and seem to genuinely want friendship once I indicated that sexy-kinky times were off the table. But I'm just not getting enough out of the relationships--there's a lack of depth to our interactions, in one case, and I'm feeling too much like an unpaid therapist in the other. It's better for me to clearly end these friendships now-- and possibly for them in the longer term, in that an undercurrent of resentment could be far more hurtful than a firm break now.

The third person on my short list for better communication is a subbie woman who has given me very mixed signals. We've played several times; about a month ago we went to an event where at least socially we seemed to get along great even though our play got interrupted... Since then, I've invited her to two events and she didn't even reply; her best friend, whom I know less well and have not been nearly so intimate with, got back to me immediately. At the risk of being annoying and socially awkward, I need to clear this up, 1. because if I, as a top, did something bad enough to warrant the silent treatment, I'd like to know about it; 2. because if she simply doesn't want to play with me again, it is at least the polite thing to do to decline, especially as we have mutual friends. --> update to this one, she just wrote me back, she was in Mexico without internet access. Yay me for over-reacting, LOL

Anyway, partly because of my frustration with that, I've decided to work on my own communication style...

January 26, 2011

Weird and Cool-weird

Two weird things happened recently. One: someone wrote me, I got distracted after reading their message and wasn't able to write back that very instant, and then they blocked me (i.e. within the same day of opening the message). Huh.

Second, in the cool-weird category: I just found out a vanilla friend is kinky! I mean, we do papercrafts and go shopping together, and she has a conventional corporate job. We were talking about her past relationships and she "came out" to me about being a Domme (and even an ex-pro-Domme). It was so unexpected!

My porn

Oz and Vampire Diaries. Between Keller being.. Keller, and werewolf teenagers tied up and writhing in pain, I'm pretty much all set.

January 20, 2011

Shallow Bitch

This is an edited (for length) reply to a guy who basically accused me of being shallow and unrealistic:
[UPDATE ...after my rant]

Hi,
You are missing two very vital points to my profile, and one rather more mundane one.
The more mundane one is that my profile may come across as more shallow and bitchy than I am in real life, because guys tend to have an inflated sense of ego/their own attractiveness (tend to-- I realize not everyone is like this!) and it weeds out people who are clearly not my type.

So, the two important points:
First, as both a Domme and a woman who has become comfortable with her sexuality, I have the right and the prerogative to pursue things that turn me on. If you had a foot fetish and I refused to let you even look at my feet, I would not be a good partner for you (or I'd be the world's biggest tease). I'm not so shallow and specific as to demand that everyone I hook up with is a blonde 25-yo surfer --I do not have particular concerns about height, hair, beards, ethnicity, or model-good-looks. And my age restrictions are more about dating potential, being in the same place in our lives, than arbitrary cut-offs. I like athletic guys who take care of themselves, with whom I have great chemistry and share overlapping kinks. That, my dear, is completely reasonable.

Second, I am an attractive woman. I date attractive men. I have dated multiple guys who are smart and attractive, yes, with those washboard abs. I nearly married one of them (thankfully realizing I would be bored with the non-kinky sex, in that case, for the rest of my life). Another cute smarty-pants who WAS kinky (and I met on here!) moved across the country for a job (after we dated for 8 months) and it just didn't work out with the distance. There's no need for me to settle for someone I'm not attracted to, and since I'm looking for a primary relationship right now, it's an important factor. Be glad I'm not specifying letters after the name, or you'd think I was being unrealistic!

Finally, I appreciate your suggestion about putting someone on a fitness regimen, but I see two problems with this: first, if they don't comply, then I am forced to reject someone with whom I have a relationship already, which pretty much sucks. I've been there; I am not such a sadist that I enjoy hurting someone's feelings. And second, I am not a babysitter. Some Dommes enjoy molding and controlling their subs in all aspects of the sub's life, but I'm just not into this. I have my own life, I prefer equality outside of the bedroom, and I feel the gift of submission is more meaningful coming from a strong and self-actualized person.
...

UPDATE: the guy who originally wrote to me turns out is not a jerk; I believe he was waxing philosophical. I feel my rant stands on its own, but want it on the record that this anonymous person doesn't deserve the brunt of my vitriol. He also made a cute point in his follow-up letter: "I mean, can you imagine my horror [if I were] to discover all the sub women in the world want to dress like men, and do a TERRIBLE job at it."

SPECIAL XMAS ADDITION: STRAP-ONS!

this was written and posted on collarme Dec. 25, 2010

I seem to get the same questions over-and-over so I'm recycling some messages I've sent. The next young-and-inexperienced boy (not putting ya down, not your fault you're inexperienced) who asks me why I'm into bi guys and informs me that as a self-proclaimed alpha male he could never take a strap-on may be referred here:

Nothing quite like making an alpha male realize he's capable of feeling overwhelmed and "taken" by a woman he trusts. Very intense! And strap-ons are something to work up to anyway-- I actually prefer to use my fingers as it provides more feedback and intimacy. Trust me, the vast majority of guys I've played with like that have spectacular orgasms...once they're allowed to cum ;o)

...Though occasionally a guy isn't "wired" for anal despite the male g-spot being there, I do recommend you play with it on your own because you're just seriously missing out if you are wired.

To your other question: why bi? Well, I can't speak for everyone on here, but it comes down to three things for me. First, the taboo/shame aspect is very hot. I think it's partly because I'm bi, and I've worked through my own shame with that (I came out in high school). So a guy having a bit of shame around that and doing it anyway because he's so turned on just speaks to me.

Second, there's obviously the control: I'm getting off as a Domme on making him do something he's not "supposed" to do. And third, there's the aspect that I think is the same reason why a lot of guys like seeing two women together: it's doubling up the whole visual pleasure and sexual energy, and usually I get to be the center of attention at some point, which is quite fun!

Special Little Butterflies

Wow, I received messages [on collarme] from two more special little butterflies today who claimed they read my profile-- but couldn't be bothered to comprehend or respond to any specifics in my profile (can I make it any more clear that I don't like IM??).

Look people, this isn't just my ego talking, it's basic common sense: if you are presenting yourself as a subbie, one of the first things you can do is demonstrate how you make an effort to learn about my preferences. A "service oriented" sub should make that service orientation shine through his or her writing. For that matter, any intelligent person would want to show how they are a good conversationalist who can learn about the person with whom they're conversing.

Is it a lot of effort, especially if you're not getting a lot of positive responses? Yes, of course, it's more effort than a form letter. However, it actually improves your chances of getting a positive response, because it doesn't make you sound like a ditwiss and it means you're pre-screening on your end for people with whom you're compatible (you know, by reading their profile). Oh, and bonus: you're not wasting your time with as many fake people, since fake profiles are unlikely to have interesting nuances for you to use as a conversation starter!

Oh, spelling errors, how I love you


Collard: a leafy green vegetable. Rarely used as a verb.
Collared: owned by someone in a D/s relationship.