About me
Interested in:
I’m looking for:
- Friends
- LTR (relationship)
- BDSM Lovers
Description
The traits I look for in a Dominant go against the grain of the role. Just as subs need incredible strength, Dominants need gentleness and humility.
A top accepts control.
A sociopath demands it.
A Dominant though? They earn it.
The only way a Dom will ever earn power over me is by showing me that he would never demand it.
.
Dominance is not a label. It’s a verdict. It's something I feel in my bones, in my breath, in the way my body responds. it draws submission out of me. I'll give up my power because I trust a person with my vulnerability. D/s is intensely intimate, and I won't engage with it until I know you'll hold it gently. Safety, it transpires, is one hell of an aphrodisiac.
.
I want a vanilla man: someone who dates me before he considers dominating me; who begins with conversations, not floggers; who gets to know me by talking to me, not fucking me. I want someone who knows people matter, that love matters, that I matter. If I wanted to be ordered around in a role-playing arrangement, I would create an OF and gain an income from it. I don't. I want someone to love who loves me; someone who feels like home; someone who is home.
.
I want a man who makes mistakes: The type who’s intimately acquainted with his own weaknesses and who doesn’t see admitting fault as a loss. I want a man who walks beside me, not one who positions himself as though we’re at war. Someone who tells the truth, not because he might get caught in a lie, but because honesty matters to him. It matters because he can't respect himself any other way. No person can evolve without the capacity to be honest with themselves, and no relationship can evolve until the hardest truths are known.
.
I write and post on the forums. A lot. When I was new I read and read but nothing really spoke to me. It was all very black and white, theoretical and serious. BDSM is serious stuff but it should also be full of fun and light. It's a romance, not a religion. In the beginning, I spoke with people who told me that this was no different to vanilla dating and it is. It's not the same at all. There's an intensity about it. I needed to read about other peoples experiences and how they felt because I feel that I might have been able to relate to it. I needed something tangible. I still do.
So I write the things that I'd have liked to have read from my experience so far in the hope others find it useful but also to get the thoughts out of my head and into some sort of logical form. Some will be reflections on my experiences, some will be questioning, and others will simply be sarcasm.
.
if you want to know more about me, maybe have a read.
.
Writing on Fet, though, has taught me that everyone reads through their own lens. No matter how hard you polish those glasses, people will apply their own tint to everything they see. Everyone seems to carry their own agenda around with them like a shopping trolley. Then they unpack the contents in everyone else's kitchen because it will be about them no matter what.
.
Few people put work into their online reading. They unpack that creaky old trolley with it's wonky wheel before they've even read the first line. I'm certain some of them don't even bother reading the post before disagreeing with it. Quite frankly, I'm quite tired of being manipulated into conversations I never signed up for. I am responsible for what I say, not what you read.
.
Please send ice cream
Limits
.
.
Pseudo Dom's
Fuckboi's
People who lack awareness or respect re consent
People who lack respect re boundaries/limits
People who are rigid in their thoughts about D/s
Fetish.com gives you…
Many possibilities! There are plenty of ways to meet new kinksters. Check out our free BDSM dating. Still not convinced to meet in person? Take a look at some kinky discussions taking place, right now...
The title is clearly click bait. Consent is nuanced but it is absolutely not fantasy.
.
The OP raises various points all of which relate to power imbalance and social constructs but, consent (or decision making) is based upon 4 key points, understanding relevant information/retaining that Read more… information, being able to use the information to consider the benefits/burdens and being able to communicate.
.
People make decisions all the time based upon the information to hand. The primary point is an individuals ability to weigh the information. At any given time there will be external factors at play and that's reality for all of us. We all make the best decisions for ourselves dependent upon the landscape we're faced with at the time. EG our decisions are time and decision specific. Consent can be withdrawn and decisions changed at any time.
.
The OP (and their subsequent comment) also provides examples as to when consent has not been given (the restaurant/compliance when survival tactics take over.)
.
The people who believe that consent doesn't exist are the dangerous ones.
We've definitely already seen large amounts of bigotry at play.
.
I do wonder whether we (England) are compliant with the ECHR, primarily the Goodwin ruling. We already know that swevices such as the CJS aren't (I'm currently working with a trans woman in an all male prison population) but for me Read more… this simply rein***s that services don't have to accommodate the needs of trans people.
I understand that the question posed to court is "what is a woman" or words to that effect and so that's all they had to consider.
But also, what is a man, if we're questioning the meaning of one specific gender why not all of them?
Why conflate gender identity with sex?
.
I could be really Read more… really skeptical...
VAWG is high on the Gov. agenda but no media outlet will name the source of risk.
Meanwhile, the Gov. are happily going along with the the courts determination, in all likelihood that they can put out a statement at the end of their term that they did their bid to protect women. The stats won't back it up but voters don't tend to loom at them.
Trans women have been scapegoated and those that they're suggesting they want to protect are at more risk.
It certainly does create equality issues.
.
I'd like more information on the safety issues that cis women experience specifically caused by trans women. Not according to you or anecdotal but based on fact/evidence
.
I'd also like to know the thoughts of people in relation to trans men entering Read more… single sex spaces.
For those willing, there's a petition on change dot org
I'm glad you've asked because, I think this is the point....
.
It's far to complex to define what a woman is but I can say that it is completely separate to sex. Woman is a gender identity. Therefore, it cannot be defined by biology.
I'm not responding to individuals with these questions but the sporting sector has been raised several times now (which is just madness to me)
.
What percentage of the population are trans women?
.
What percentage of that population are involved in sports pro or otherwise?
.
Don't guess, I'm Read more… expecting you to go to a credible source of information and take a look for yourselves.
I hadn't considered this perspective actually and I think it's a fair point. I do think it's easily rectified though especially at grassroots/local levels by creating person centred care which is on all ICBs agendas and has been for a long time (for any comeback re the last point - I know - the Read more… NHS has a long way to go.)
Historically, everytime we simplify identity, we end up doing the opposite of protecting the people who need it most.
.
All this does is protect a really narrow definition of womanhood. To suggest otherwise is thinly veiled transphobia.
It's my understanding that, under current legislation, a trans woman will never be recognised as a woman legally.
And that's fair I guess. I don't have the same view. To reduce someone to their biology alone is to remove their personhood. It doesn't account for hormones/people who are intersex or have various medical conditions affecting their biology. Food for thought maybe. I also believe that if a man Read more… wanted to enter a single sex space for ulterior motives, they wouldn't bother going through the rigmarole of gender reassignment.
.
This post is NOT Read more…intended to be inflammatory. Hoping the mods will be monitoring closely. I've tried to phrase as sensitively as I can though I appreciate that that may not be the case throughmy own naivety. But I do feel that the question of consequences is applicable to the BDSM community.
.
Does the Equality Act need to be updated? Whilst gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, it obviously won't apply to all.
.
What's the reaction within the trans community? What is the potential impact (we can probably make an educated guess at the headlines) What steps are the community taking/planning? What can allies do to support?
.
Genuinely, from someone who may only have superficial understanding but also doesn't believe that legislation is/should be as black and white as it is and with understanding that this is new and it may take time for the impact to be realised.
I agree with your thinking. Confidence doesn't always equate to superiority (and that's not the right word for me). Confidence is often misplaced. Confidence may well garner my respect (unless ill placed) and/or confidence in that person but, it doesn't necessarily result in anything more than that.
Well, this is true. It's either this or screaming 🤣😂
Mainly cry, gone are the days of banter
However, a lot of trans folk (and people with any form of understanding/empathy) are rightfully concerned.
So, here goes. The ruling ONLY was related Read more… to the Equalities Act 2010. That, within that act - the definition of a woman was a 'cis woman' unless otherwise explained elsewhere in the act.
Single Sex Spaces could *already* limit to cis women (or, cis men) so nothing has changed in that regard - however, of course there are worries some that did include trans women, will now exclude them because of (a) their own prejudice (b) misunderstanding the ruling (c) pressure from those who have weaponised or misunderstood the ruling
The only other law/act changed as a result of this is one in Scotland, introduced in 2018, which the whole thing was about (the act basically *encouraged* firms to have 50% women on public boards, and trans women were included in this 50% - trans women no longer count towards this 50% recommendation)
However, the EA2010 was never really fit for purpose in the first place, a lot of catch-alls and this now means there needs to be specific provisions written for the SIX sex classes this ruling has indirectly created (cis woman, trans woman with GRC, trans woman without GRC, cis man, cis man with GRC, cis man without GRC) which is going to take a long time, which is a concern because it means there are assorted loopholes left open
Within the ruling - a trans woman can *still* claim sex discrimination if they're perceived as a cis woman, and still can claim discrimination on grounds of being trans. This means there is some ironing out to do, but - but, effectively, a lot of businesses need a 3rd bathroom now. A lot of gyms, etc need a 3rd changing room. If they aint got space, they need to knock through into one big gender neutral one.
Of course, the weaponised side is of course pressuring the changes into other acts and into practice where it's not legally required. Hospitals could permit trans folk on single sex wards last Monday, and can do so next Monday, but then there are those pressuring them not to.
So for everyone's rights and safety - if not there, then where?❞
We've definitely already seen large amounts of bigotry at play.
.
I do wonder whether we (England) are compliant with the ECHR, primarily the Goodwin ruling. We already know that swevices such as the CJS aren't (I'm currently working with a trans woman in an all male prison population) but for me this simply rein***s that services don't have to accommodate the needs of trans people.
I have seen nigh on no part of the discussion regarding this ruling talk about trans men - all the heat, all the furore, all the focus of people's Read more… arguments, it is on trans women.
Which seems to me to demonstrate the inherent bigotry and bias present in much of the debates; the problem many opposers claim to have with trans people is not the problem they do actually have.❞
I understand that the question posed to court is "what is a woman" or words to that effect and so that's all they had to consider.
But also, what is a man, if we're questioning the meaning of one specific gender why not all of them?
Why conflate gender identity with sex?
.
I could be really really skeptical...
VAWG is high on the Gov. agenda but no media outlet will name the source of risk.
Meanwhile, the Gov. are happily going along with the the courts determination, in all likelihood that they can put out a statement at the end of their term that they did their bid to protect women. The stats won't back it up but voters don't tend to loom at them.
Trans women have been scapegoated and those that they're suggesting they want to protect are at more risk.
I've made comments on another site today about one potential impact which I think demonstrates how poorly thought-through and considered the ruling was.
A gentleman was saying that Read more… this is a positive step because of all the horror stories he had read about predatory men pretending to be trans/NB to gain access to women's bathrooms (yes, that old chestnut), and that he does not want any male entering such a space that his wife or daughter uses in any circumstances.
After I'd pointed out that he himself had just demonstrated that the argument used here is not about trans people but about ab*sers and predators, I explained that what the ruling has actually done is make it easier for such hypothetical criminals to gain access to women's toilets and other facilities. If a would-be ab*ser was previously of the mindset to go to those lengths, they can instead now stroll straight into a washroom facility presenting exactly as they are and if challenged - in the first instance anyway - simply claim to be a trans man.
I also note that neither this gentleman nor anybody else I've seen using the "man in a woman's space" argument has objected to or petitioned against venues which operate a policy of employing cleaning/sanitation workers of any sex or gender to work in toilet facilities...
Another impact I've seen picked up on today which has particularly serious implications is that of protected job roles. So many positions - the majority of those in women's refuges, for example - are exempt from equal rights laws and can only be offered to women (usually; there are instances where the reverse is true). This ruling now opens the door for trans men to potentially apply for such positions and be able to submit a valid discrimination claim if their application should not be seriously considered fairly.