The local "subs" don't like it when you don't fall all over them

I just had an online encounter with an in-state "boy" who says he's submissive and interested in bondage. Apparently, as far as he's concerned, that's all he should have to say for me to completely fawn over him, offer him whatever he wants, and be the "bondage service" described in the last post. He wants to be tied up, therefore, I, as someone who's not in college and hot like him, should just ignore what I want and do whatever he wants. Even if he doesn't know what that is. And asking what it might be is "rude" on my part, he said.

No setting limits ahead of time but vetoing everything as it happens? That's not submitting at all, I told him, and "most doms, including me, aren't interested in that."

Him: congrats, but that doesnt help someone like me

Me: what does?

Me: and I don't need the "congrats" snark - I'm taking the time to try to explain some of the concepts you've asked about

Him: fuck you!! Im through

Me: good luck to you

God save the BDSM world from subs who think they're doing people favors by thinking about submitting.

I need to be more selfish

That's an odd start to the first post here in nearly two months - especially from a BDSM dominant, since we're "supposed" to be the most selfish people out there, right? It's all about the Master, the slave merely serves the Master's needs, the Master gets whatever he wants, right?

Typically, not so much. The acknowledged experts in our lifestyle, from Larry Townsend to Joseph W. Bean to Jack Rinella, all repeatedly and eloquently note that a BDSM relationship is two-way, just like any other. The sub/slave finds his needs met in serving the Master; the Master finds his needs met in allowing the slave to serve. Slaves often obsess over things the Master wants and does with them (like this, for example), but Masters often wind up "using" their slaves in ways that are far more satisfying for the slave than the Master.

If the slave has a huge jones for bootlicking, the Master often lets him do it, even if the Master doesn't really care one way or the other about boots or feet. Or the Master may keep the slave in chastity because it does a lot of good for the slave, even if the Master would just as soon see the slave cum more often.

That's all well and good. BDSM is a two-way relationship, and the Master who minimizes or ignores his slave's gift of service does so at his own peril. On the other hand, it's all too easy for a Master to become too accommodating, making the scene entirely about what the slave wants and not about what the Master wants.

I'm not just talking about things like that, either. I regularly get interest from local boys who want to get all up with Teh Kink, but their list of limits is a mile long. I've actually had guys want me to bind them in a BDSM context with all of the following restrictions:

• No oral


• No anal (including toys and fingers)


• No gags


• No blindfolds


• No pain of any kind


• No permanent or temporary marks


• Being released immediately upon saying so

The second one isn't as common, but the others are. Basically, these boys think a Master with a reasonably well equipped dungeon is some kind of "bondage service" - they go to the dungeon, get tied up exactly how they want and get fucked (or sucked or jacked off), then they get released and go home.

Historically, I've not been a big believer in making slaves stay on their knees in my presence, and I usually don't have the patience to train a just-occasional boy to say "Sir" in every sentence, but without those clear signs of dominance some "slaves" take it way too far in the other direction.

I need to be more selfish by making it clear to subs and wannabe-subs everywhere that I am not a bondage service - if you get to play here, you are expected to serve my needs and wants. If the process of doing that doesn't serve your needs and wants, then don't come serve.

I need to be more selfish by not going out of my way to create situations that serve a slave's needs but not my own. I need to stop getting emotionally involved in providing comfort and a BDSM safety net to guys who refuse to even acknowledge that they know me around their twink vanilla friends.

I need to stop making the closet-level mistake of thinking that the wrong relationship is better than no relationship, particularly in thinking from time to time that having someone in bondage is better than having no one in bondage. It's not, any more than a gay guy choosing the easy route of being with a girl is "better" than being gay and alone. In fact, it's just wrong.

I enjoy being there for guys who are there for me. I need to be more selfish and let those who would deny me in public go their own way - I'm not a member of the BDSM closet-enabling group.

I'm not saying I won't accept limits from now on, or that only experienced slaves need apply from now on. I'm saying that I am who I am, and if you want to play here, you want to serve me. If you don't want to serve me, you don't want to play here. It's not my obligation or responsibility to explain to you the clear meaning of my words when you're hyper-defensive, or to talk you into anything, or to forego what I like so you can have what you like.

It's not all about what I want, but if I'm your BDSM Master, it ought to be at least half about what I want. If you won't serve me, or at least stand up and be counted as being with me, then why should I stand up for you?

I need to be more selfish. I'm working on it.