?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Chicago



There is little better way to begin an evening than at a very nice, if somewhat pricey, restaurant a short walk from dayo's apartment. One very delicious (pasta with mussels1 and clams, yum!) later, we headed back with happy tummies to her place, where some very nice vodka2 awaited.

And then, the kink.

One large roll of pallet wrap, two wicked sharp knives, a box of latex gloves, one small silver bullet vibrator, eight floggers3, and a giant-sized container of KY make for a very lovely evening indeed.

The floggers made the evening's appetizer. "Strip." I pushed her down onto the air mattress and stood behind her. A light, not too thuddy flogger for the opening, followed by two slightly heavier floggers simultaneously for a bit more of a warm-up, then a new, quite heavy flogger she had not yet deflowered for a bit more sensation...

Her backside was still slightly bruised from the previous evening in the dungeon, so it didn't take long to have her squirming.

After the appetizer, the pallet wrap. Pallet wrap is awesome for quick, easy, no-wait bondage; a few turns around her arms and body had her arms firmly bound to her sides. "It feels like being hugged," she said.

One quick push had her flat on her back on the mattress. The interesting thing about having your arms immobilized at your sides is that you can offer very little--for which read "no"--resistance to being manhandled around, and when you're toppled over, you tend to go down quickly. "Whuf!"

I was on top of her in a flash, and entered her roughly. Her hands were free, poking out from under the pallet wrap, but she was quite unable to move aside from that...in effect, allowing her only enough freedom to help me take her, but not enough to resist.

"I'm going to come now." There's something that's just really fun about telling her that while I'm on top of her, pinning her down, looking into her eyes. "Take it!"

There's something even more fun about doing it more than once. Arms wrapped tightly around her, feeling her heat against me, answering the heat inside me...it's intoxicating, and powerful. Three hard orgasms later, and I left her without warning, and watched her squirm on the bed.

"Quit pouting." Pulling on a rubber glove. "You'll get what you want soon enough." Probing with the tip of one finger. "My goodness, you're wet. I bet I could do this without any lube. But--" picking up the tube--"I like you squishy."

My hand went in with no resistance at all. Normally, it takes a bit of work to get it fully inside her. Normally. Not tonight.

"Oh, my god!"

"Yes." Pushing the bullet into her fingers. "Use this."

"You're in deep!"

"No, that's not deep. This--"

"Nnngh!"

"--is deep."

Some time later, when she was limp and sweaty and spent, and I had drawn my hand free and discarded the glove, we lay side by side and I caressed her hair. tongue and fingers running over breasts, through tight plastic. "You'll like this."

The tip of the knife, razor sharp, gliding over the curve of her breast bound and flattened by the pallet wrap.

"Oooh!"

Some folks like using dull knives for knife play. I do too, sometimes, but for dayoI have a curved, twin-bladed punch dagger sharp enough to slice a hydrogen atom free of an oxygen atom. Her back still carried a hair-fine tracery of faint white lines from the previous evening.

"Oh, that feels good!"

"Does it, now?"

A quick flip of the wrist and the blades sliced under the pallet wrap and out, cutting away a section of plastic film, revealing flesh, the underside of her breast. "And how about this?" Tips tracing along glowing skin, sheened with sweat, feather-light.

"Oh god!"

"Now hold still!" Blade slipping under cling wrap, slicing more free, tickling lightly over sensitized skin, following curves.

It took quite some time to remove the wrap, picking it apart and slicing it away bit by bit, chasing bare flesh with pointed steel.

"Oh! That was fun!"

"Time to put you to bed. And--" grinning "--I'm not finished with you yet."


1 I'm not quite sure what's up with me and mussels. When I was a kid, I had relatives living in Florida and New Jersey, so I was exposed to seafood from an early age. I've always loved things like crab, fish, scallops, and lobster, but for most of my life I've hated hated mussels.

Well, a few years ago, I developed a craving for mussels. Shelly and I went out to dinner, I ordered some, and they were mmm mmm tasty. I've loved them since.

2 One of the things I learned from serolynne is the difference between good vodka and bad vodka. There's a significant distance between the two. Good vodka is one of life's little treats. Bad vodka is like flaming battery acid with a chaser of ground glass.

3 Yes, eight. Why eight, you ask? Well, there's a reason that dedicated perverts usually have large collections of floggers. They come in a startling array of sizes and styles, and each produces a unique sensation. They're like spice to a chef; you can mix and match them to tailor just precisely the sensation you desire.

Tags:



Comments

tacit
Nov. 7th, 2008 03:31 pm (UTC)
t's about potential friends. People whom I like and respect, but who still don't know me very well. People with whom I only hope to develop something, and I'm really afraid to screw it up. Then, communication is the key; but if I try to communicate while ignoring the accepted social norms of behavior, I will probably be misunderstood.

Hmm. That's an interesting point, though one I seem to approach from the opposite end.

I am very selective about my friends. I want and value only friends who are freethinking, and openminded, who do not accept social norms simply because they are social norms, who understand non-traditional sex and relationships, that sort of thing.

By being open about my own non-traditional sexual and relationship life, I find that I tend to attract people with those qualities to me. The folks who see me, or read the things I write, and respond to those things, tend to be the folks who have the qualities I want and value in a friend. The more likely a person is to misunderstand or to be put off by these things, the less likely that person is to have these qualities.

Openness acts as its own filter; it's a mechanism for quickly finding those people who are most likely to be the kins of friends I want to have. I doubt, for example, that there are very many sexually repressive Evangelicals reading my blog, and that suits me fine.

But let's flip that on its head and look at the other side. Say you constrain your interaction with the world at large to what you believe the social norms o be, and let's say that other people also do the same thing. How will you recognize the folks that share your values and proclivities? They're busy conforming to their perceptions of social norms, too, right? If neither you nor your kinky neighbor ever works up the nerve to mention that you're kinky, how will you recognize one another?

How, for that matter, if everyone's hiding those things that they believe might violate perceived social norms, can you really even tell what the social norms ARE? If you have a group of 100 people, and 50 of them are kinky, but nobody talks about it and nobody even knows about it because all 50 of them are interacting with everyone else only according to the most conservatives of social norms, then how are those fifty people going to find each other, and what does the "social norm" even mean? In that thought experiment, half of the people are behaving in a way that doesn't express the reality of who they are; if they became more open, doesn't that mean that the "social norm" would change, by definition? Is it actually a social norm if it doesn't even reflect the values of a majority of the people to begin with?

One of the things that I've learned by being as open as I am is that kinky people are everywhere, Poly kinky BDSMers are, I think, far, far more common than everyone believes; it's just that you can't recognize a lot of 'em 'cause they're too busy trying not to be open. :)
joreth
Nov. 7th, 2008 05:49 pm (UTC)
As usual, you've stated what I was trying to say in a much more understandable manner.

The main point I was trying to get across was Openness acts as its own filter; it's a mechanism for quickly finding those people who are most likely to be the kins of friends I want to have. This is why it doesn't bother me to have people not like me based on what I say online. If they're bothered by my aggressive honesty, or by my kinkiness or polyness or my tomboyishness, or whatever, then they're not likely to want to be my friend, and they're not likely to be the kind of friend I want to have. So this weeds them out before I've had a chance to become so heavily invested in them that it actually does hurt when they leave.

Your other point is exactly why I believe all "alternative-lifestyle" people who can afford to be out, should be out. If no one is open about who they are, how will we ever find each other? And if no one knows that they're not the only one, how can we expect our society to change in the direction of being more accepting towards us?
(Anonymous)
Nov. 9th, 2008 06:16 pm (UTC)
Oh, no, now you didn't understand me. I'm very far from thinking that we should always conform to the perceived social norms. I certainly don't do it myself. I'm very open about being poly, for example; and I 100% agree with all your points about the values of openness, particularly for non-traditional cultures. Poly, actually, makes a pretty bad example for what I had in mind, because it can be explained pretty easily -- compared to some other things. You just say you're polyamorous, and if they want to know what it means, you tell. It's not a cause of misunderstandings -- not in the way I mean.

The main thing is this: it's not that I'm bothered that certain people will learn certain things about me -- on the contrary, I want to make it as easy as possible for all people to learn things about me (for all the important reasons you said). But, paradoxically, the way to make it happen is to delay openness on certain issues until the relationship develops sufficiently. Notice I said "delay", not "forego"! If you are being open from the start, people might "learn" things that are not actually true. I'll have to show it on some real examples:

Consider a hypothetical guy, Pete who saw joreth's profile on okcupid, read her journal and decided that she is really, really cool. And smart. And interesting. And really sexy, too. He loves her photos -- he thinks her face and body are absolutely gorgeous. Imagine now that our Pete meets joreth for the first time at a con... he sees her in her Leila and has to swallow. All he can think is: "WOW". But he's a smart guy. And so he knows when not to be open -- about certain things. He knows that the last thing he should do right now is to say exactly how he feels. So he'll compliment her costume and begin a conversation about her latest journal post. Eventually, if all goes well, he will let her know everything. But not until he'll be reasonably sure that she will understand his feelings for what they really are. If he says it right now, he is going to be misunderstood; and joreth is important enough for him to really, really not want to screw it up.

A different example, about kink: imagine a gay guy, Jim, who falls in love with Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. In addition to being fascinated with this beautiful, complex art, he also finds it really hot. For him, the battle for dominance of each other's body can be an intense erotic experience. OK... but should he detail in his public journal his sexual fantasies about Royce Gracie putting him in a rear naked choke? A resounding, NO! Because if his instructor and training partners learn about this... shit will hit the fan. They will totally misunderstand it. Most of them will be appalled by the perceived disrespect for the sport (or for Royce) -- and they will be totally wrong, because Jim has tons of respect. Many of them will be afraid that he will harass them, or see his kink as an invitation to harass him. The funny thing: Jim believes that if only they all knew exactly what is going on in his head, most of them would have no problem at all with it. The problem is that the whole issue is complex and subtle, and people just really tend to misunderstand it. So, Jim will come out -- to his close friends -- but all the rest will have to wait.
[continued]
joreth
Nov. 14th, 2008 02:51 am (UTC)
I beg to differ about your example concerning me.

First of all, I automatically assume that anyone who is interested in me romantically will find me attractive, so him "delaying" telling me that he finds me attractive doesn't do anything, since I've already assumed he does.

What I object to is people finding me nothing *but* attractive. And anyone who cannot think of anything to say to me except "ur hot" is a reasonable indication that he holds physical attractiveness higher in value than I do.

What I also object to is anyone who tells me "ur hot" when I explicitly request not to. I never hold anyone permanently responsible for doing or saying something that I have never explicitly said not to do. That would be unreasonable. I can't expect anyone to read my mind, so if I haven't said so yet, you get a free pass this time.

So when I get so upset at people emailing me with "ur hot", it's only partially because of my attitude about physical appearance. Mostly, it's because this person has just indicated to me that he does not listen to what I say and does not care for my feelings. And what *doesn't* make it into the public journals are all the emails I get where someone did *not* piss me off, many of which do compliment me on my physical appearance.

So, in your example, Pete not telling me that he is attracted to me only results in me not knowing that he is considering me as a potential partner - which will most likely result in me writing him off because I'm not getting any indication that he's interested.

If he had told me at the time, I could respond appropriately. The biggest way to screw something up with me is to not tell me something - that's a far less forgivable offense than simply complimenting me.
(Anonymous)
Nov. 14th, 2008 10:30 pm (UTC)
You're right. When I wrote about Pete meeting you for the first time, I implicitly assumed that this meeting was, in fact, the first interaction he had with you (that until this meeting he only read you, without trying to contact in any way). But now when I think about it -- why would that be the case? If he liked you so much based on your journal, he should have written an email first, or commented on your journal, or something. That way, he wouldn't create a situation in which potential misunderstandings could occur.
So, yes, when I look at the example from this point of view, it actually demonstrates how being open as early as possible helps avoid misunderstandings. You're right - my bad :-)
(Anonymous)
Nov. 9th, 2008 06:18 pm (UTC)
A last example: imagine a guy, John, who is pathetically in love with a woman he's never seen or spoken with in real life. He read her books; and was blown away by her wisdom and character. Since then, he listened to every interview she gave and recorded every show she appeared on. He dreams about her, and has a collection of her photos. He sounds typical, right? A pathetic loser, in love with a celebrity. Immature, has no life, doesn't understand what real intimacy is, unable to distinguish real life and fantasy… you could go on. But it would all be wrong. All these things would be correct for 99.9% of such cases – but Johnny is an exception to the rule. And in order to understand that he is not, in fact, all of the above, you would have to know him very well. There are just no shortcuts in this case. You would have to be his close friend in order to know that he actually has a life – and he's smart and happy and confident and has wonderful relationships. You would then have to read all these books that meant so much to him, and listen to him explaining his feelings. You'd have to see for yourself that, as incredible as it sounds, John actually loves a real person, and not a fantasy. And only then you'd say: "You know what, man? You're right. She's just chock-full of awesome. And you have my sympathy… although I'm also happy for you."
And that's why only John's close friends know about his crush. He's extremely careful when he discusses the ideas from her books in his online journal. He knows that if he's not careful, all people -- including HER, if she ever visits his site -- would think he is a pathetic loser. And he doesn’t want that.

Sorry for the long post, I just wanted to show what I meant – how honesty and openness about intimate and complex things, expressed prematurely, can sometimes block paths to intimacy instead of opening them.
joreth
Nov. 14th, 2008 02:54 am (UTC)
John does not love a real person. He can't. He doesn't know her. He "loves" a character in his head that he has created based on her books. His character might be remarkably similar to the real person, but he does not, in fact, know her.

Given the right circumstances, it might grow into a real love. But without having spoken to her even once, he does not *know* her, even as much as anyone can "know" anyone else.
(Anonymous)
Nov. 14th, 2008 11:18 pm (UTC)
Yes, you're right -- I wasn't clear enough about that. Really knowing a person takes years of *good* communication. All this long process of "getting to know someone" is, in fact, creating a character in our head, based on all the information we are given. As time passes and we have more and more information, we update this "model" or "character" based on new evidence, and it gets closer and closer to reality (although, as Franklin wrote somewhere, even after many years we still can have a remarkably wrong model).

What I meant is that John's crush is just as valid as any other crush -- of course the information he has is extremely limited, but so it usually is when one only falls in love! He himself understands that there are many ways in which he could be wrong about her; problem is, he doesn't have access to information that might change his current evaluation. He can't get to know her. And what he knows so far blew him away.

My point was that it takes a lot of information to understand that his particular crush is not a sign of immaturity, or other psychological problems that come to mind when one first hears about it. That's why he's so shy about it -- he doesn't want to create a false impression.
joreth
Nov. 15th, 2008 11:00 pm (UTC)
A better understanding of himself and what a "crush" is and is not would be much more beneficial to avoiding creating a false impression than simply not talking about it at all.

Fans often admit their crushes or admiration of celebrities and it's not considered creepy. As long as John understands that what he feels is an admiration for a person that he *does not know and might not turn out to be who he expects*, his admission of his crush might even *prompt* a meeting which could turn into the realization of his limerance.

So, once again, communication and honesty (including and especially with oneself) is still the better option, particularly with paired with an education and understanding of the human condition.
(Anonymous)
Nov. 16th, 2008 07:46 pm (UTC)

Fans often admit their crushes or admiration of celebrities and it's not considered creepy.

From what I heard, it usually is. Considered, I mean. Admiration -- no, but a crush -- yes. Either creepy, or immature/silly, or both. But you're right nevertheless... I just understood something: the habit of being brutally open about intimate things pushes you to be who you want to be. Because if you have that habit, and then you feel ashamed about sharing something -- you start digging into the sources of that shame, and either find a legitimate cause, a problem that you should deal with, or an irrational fear that you drag out to the light and fight head on. Either way, you have no choice but to eventually become confident and at peace with yourself -- and then to work in order to keep that peace.

You know what I really like about you, Shara? You just don't let go :-) If you disagree with something, you just hammer on it until understanding is reached. I think that it is totally awesome!
I can't remember when was the last conversation that changed my mind about something important. This one has. Moreover, unlike some other times, I think that my actual behavior is going to change as a result :-) (although that will require some willpower and courage on my part... and I'm also sure I'll be hurt quite a few times). But it's worth it. You're right. It's all worth it.

Thank you,
Ola

P.S. I agree 100% about the need to protect other people's privacy, of course...
joreth
Nov. 17th, 2008 02:01 am (UTC)
I'm so glad you're appreciative - it occurred to me a couple of posts ago that my constant responses could be viewed as badgering you, and I meant to say something about it, but I forgot. It's just that this is a complex concept and not easy to get across in a few journal posts. It's much easier in a verbal dialog when you can add vocal inflection and body language, and also to respond immediately.

Yes, I think you've found one of the main reasons why brutal honesty is so important - it's not just honesty with others, but honesty with oneself. It's very easy to lie to oneself when you're already in the habit of lying or hiding to others. When you make yourself be honest to others, you can't hide from yourself. Either you will see yourself, or someone else will and point it out to you.

That's also one of the benefits to polyamory (or a good, trustworthy, honest social circle) - it's harder to hide from additional pairs of eyes.

As tacit has said before, being a secure person takes practice, just as being insecure takes practice - we just don't always realize that we're "practicing" our insecurities. So yes, it will be difficult at first, and you will get hurt. But I've found that we get hurt anyway. The hurt is merely what happens in between the good stuff :-)