DOMestic Bdsm and Female Domination

The Fem Dom Training Program.
Advises on how best to train your husband/lover.

* * * start of the digest * * *

C: topping from the bottom - what is it?
From: miss allie
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:28:02 EDT

I know that i must be stupid but i don't understand what
"topping from the bottom" is. Can somebody please explain that
to me? It would be most appreciated.

miss allie

* * * next message * * *

Re: C: topping from the bottom - what is it?
Date: 24 Mar 2009 21:09:18 -0000
From: micheleFFS

miss allie wrote:

>i don't understand what "topping from the bottom" is. Can
>somebody please explain

I'm brand new to the site, but experienced in BDSM. My
understanding of "topping from the bottom" is when the bottom,
the passive or receiving partner, attempts to direct the scene
and to tell the top what to do. This is very distinct from
negotiating or setting limits beforehand.

As an example, suppose a top and bottom agree she'll use both a
paddle and a cane on the lucky submissive. If he didn't explain
he likes thud (paddle) and wanted to explore limits of sting
(cane) beforehand, he'd probably be considered topping from the
bottom if he insisted on "More thud, less sting" while she was
exercising her caning skills.

There are gray areas. My Superior was cropping me one night and
kept striking the same spot again and again. Eventually, it hurt
so much I asked her to please hit me somewhere else. She
refused. I tried to endure, but I was beyond my comfort zone. I
finally said "I'm using my safeword for that spot, not the whole
scene," then said my safeword. She relented and covered the rest
of my grateful bum with the leather. We had an inconclusive
discussion afterwards.

What do the rest of you think? Was I topping from the bottom,
informing and begging (as I thought I was), or negotiating after
the fact? As a switch, I'm very aware of the need to care for
your bottoms.

michele

* * * next message * * *

Re: C: topping from the bottom - what is it?
Date: 25 Mar 2009 01:18:57 -0000
From: MichaelK

The way I see BDSM is that there are two different components -
Dom/sub and S/M (giving and receiving pain).

I think of the words top and bottom as applying to the S/M part.
Those taking part in S/M may or may not also enjoy Dom / sub.

A dominant may enjoy the sensations of being whipped, and so
sometimes be a bottom. Perhaps in such a situation it is
appropriate for the Dom to give direction to the top (who might
be their sub).

Where, in my opinion, the terminology breaks down is when
"topping from the bottom" is used to refer to a sub who tries to
influence the activities. If this couple don't do any S/M, then
neither are a top or a bottom.

Unfortunately "topping from the bottom" is so commonly used to
also mean "dominating from the submissive" that we are probably
stuck with it.

The example given by micheleFFS is a good one for showing how
BDSM has different viewpoints.

I think that there will be some who think that it is appropriate for a top
to do whatever they want until a Safe Word is used.

But if I was micheleFFS I would be very unhappy with my top.

Though the BDSM ideal is of a top who does what they want (or a
Dominant that is 100% in control), I think that for many of us
we prefer our BDSM to be a little bit more (or a lot more) a
partnership.

I wish all those striving for the BDSM ideal good luck.

But for the rest of us I think the BDSM ideal lets some
tops/doms get away with not caring enough for their partner, and
I think the BDSM ideal leaves some bottoms/subs who feel unhappy
about how things are going thinking that it is their fault for
not meeting the BDSM ideal, and thus they should not just put up
with the behaviour, but should somehow try to embrace their
top/dom's behaviour.

Devotional Sex is based on everything being win-win. That is
both people enjoy what happens. This is an alternative to the
view of the perfect bottom/submissive who should just accept.

I think micheleFFS should decide what makes her happy as a
person. This might be to strive towards the BDSM ideal (and thus
she should accept her top's behaviour), or it can be to say that
in her interactions she wants more win-win, and so it is
appropriate to tell her top that she went too far.

Cheers,
Michael

Devotional Sex

* * * next message * * *

Re: C: men who top from the bottom - submissive or not?
Date: 25 Mar 2009 21:35:18 -0000
From: Renate

People with bdsm feelings have in real life often the opposite
role.

* * * next message * * *

Re: P: dominant wife seeking couples with similar interests
Date: 31 Mar 2009 03:52:40 -0000
From: Mark

Ms. Kitty wrote:

>interested in developing friendships with other couples (man
>and women) who believe the wife is in charge and the
>disciplinarian. We are seeking a couple like ourselves.

Hi Ms. Kitty

My mistress and I live in northern California. I'm hoping that
we might be able to be friends with another couple in the bay
area that we might be able to be social with and have some what
free flowing conversations. Although we scene and play in public
we really don't socialize, and, I miss the company.

If you're interested in helping, please let me know.

* * * next message * * *

Re: C: dominant woman - only in a drunken stupor
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: nuked potatoes

Miss Stress - Saber wrote:

>I strongly disagree based upon my definition of kink, so I'd
>like to know yours.

Hello all,

I am only briefly able to read DOMestic as I recently started a
new project, and my days are filled with work and sleep. I am
grateful for all who shared and will respond when I have enough
time. Ms Sabre - approx 2 weeks my next time off. i can answer
one question with another however. What is Kink? to that I'd ask
what is normal?

nuked potatoes

geocities.com/nuked_potatoes/

Immortality is my short-term goal.
Is infinity odd or even?

* * * next message * * *

Re: C: dominant woman - only in a drunken stupor
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: shy won

Miss Stress - Saber wrote:

>Define Kink, please. Because I strongly disagree based upon my
>definition of kink, so I'd like to know yours. You can give
>examples if you want.

Erotic is tickling your partner with a feather.....
Kinky is using the whole chicken...

Sorry, couldn't resist :)

shywon

* * * next message * * *

Re: C: dominant woman - only in a drunken stupor
Date: 24 Mar 2009 03:08:42 -0000
From: Mark

Ok, I read all of this drivel Darryl spouted on this and "Is
Kink Really Fair.....", with disdainful amusement.

Time for some facts to clear the air, (note this comes from
someone with nearly 30 years actual, real life lifestyle
experience), are you ready?

Some men and women are naturally submissive.

Some men and women are naturally dominant.

Some men and women are naturally switches, (able to switch
between being dominant and/or submissive), with different or the
same partners.

Some men and women are neither in the context of a relationship
and have no interest in it.

The one thing Darryl did get right is the fact that a
"Matriarchal society" is sheer fantasy. Neither gender is
inherently "superior" to the other. It's the individual's
experience, interest, personality, and other factors that
determine if they are dominant, submissive, a switch, and if
they will act upon such tendencies and seek out a like minded
partner. I myself do not automatically fall to my knees in the
presence of any woman other than my Wife, dominant or not. I
submit to my Wife only, and the rest of the world can go
wandering around bothering themselves for all I care.

Everything else he posted was utter ignorant nonsense.

>"But it is true I do not believe Women were ever to be
>Dominant in a sexual way. Women are nurturing, mothers sisters
>and daughters. Dominance on a Woman's part is the respect she
>commands by being her true self not some pervy idea a Man comes
>up with."

Darryl, does your narrow minded view of sexuality and women take
into account dominant and submissive lesbians? From your
comments you relegate women to being sexless creatures meant
only to nurture and be "brood mares". How quaintly Victorian! Do
you also feel that women have no interest in sex and are
incapable of orgasms, much as the Victorians believed? How much
actual experience do you have with women, (outside of your
Mother, sisters, cousins, co-workers and the like), to base such
illogical and spurious comments on?

I have known, (and had the honor, pleasure and privilege of
serving), many dominant women in my lifetime and am currently
very happily married to a very dominant, strict, exacting and
most importantly, very loving woman. She was dominant and
experienced in the lifestyle before we met, just as I was
submissive and experienced in it as well, so neither of us had
to "change" the other one into something we weren't.

I don't know what you're seeking in a woman, or what dominant
qualities you want to project onto them, but I can see why
you're having zero success in finding the right woman for you. I
don't think she exists, except in your fantasies, and thus you
can make such poorly thought out sweeping comments as you have.
Either that, or you are so terrified of finding someone that can
actually dominate you, and thus discovering your true nature,
that you deliberately set the bar for them so artificially high
that nobody can reach it.

What a load of poorly thought out and ridiculous comments you
made Darryl, but then the past few years of being here, I've
read much from you that pointed to this ultimate unravelling of
your idealogical thoughts and beliefs. The signs were there,
just not as out in the open.

* * * next message * * *

Re: C: dominant woman - only in a drunken stupor
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:13:40 +0100
From: "Christine" at u4ds.com

Hello,

nuked potatoes wrote:

>i can answer one question with another however. What is Kink?
>to that I'd ask what is normal?

Nuked, I suggest you read DOMestic properly before replying in
future. You are just wasting everyone's time.

Your answer "what is normal?" is not only a waste of time but an
insult to everyone who has replied to you. Have the courtesy to
read and answer the questions.

You completely missed and/or deliberately evaded the points
raised. So it seems to be you who is copping out.

Nobody here was asking you "what is kink". I've already offered
you a definition at:-

http://u4ds.com/2009/02/dominant_woman_only_in_a_drunk.shtml#c006218

We were asking you what _you_ define as kink? Nobody but you can
answer that question, as it is only about you.

Now you have asked yourself another question which you can also
be the only one to answer. What do you define as normal?

I've already offered my definition of normal at:-

http://u4ds.com/2009/03/is_kink_really_fair_for_most_w.shtml

What do you define as kink that you think is unfair to most
women?

We can't discuss your sweeping generalisations that some things
exist, and others don't exist, until you define what you mean by
your words.

You will be just wasting your time and ours until you can answer
the questions about your definitions including the question
David asked at:-

http://u4ds.com/2009/03/dominant_woman_definition.shtml

Where David wrote:

"A dominant woman has actual control of the BDSM
context/relationship, exercising authority or power over a
submissive"

And where David asked:

Do you accept that definition of a "Dominant Woman"?
If not, would you like to give us your definition?

sincerely,
Christine at Ms-Christine.com

Renew or get your DOMestic password.

* * * next message * * *

Re: S: Anniversary Surprise
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: michelle collins

I really loved shoekisser's story. All 13 parts of it were
eagerly awaited.

Thank you shoekisser wherever you are darling!

shelle

xxxxx

* * * next message * * *

Re: S: Anniversary Surprise
Date: 29 Mar 2009 14:04:24 -0000
From: shoekisser

shelle wrote:

>Thank you shoekisser wherever you are darling!

Shelle,

I'm in sunny Southern California.
I'm working on another story.
And thank you for the "Darling"

* * * next message * * *

Story: In The Bank Manager's Cupboard. Part Twenty.
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:39:54 -0000
From: "Christine" at u4ds.com / MsChristine.com

Previous issues are at:-
http://u4ds.com/stories/meeting_and_seduction/

In The Bank Manager's Cupboard - by Ms. Christine
Copyright 1986-2009 Christine and David Stevenson
http://www.mschristine.com/bank.shtml

Part Twenty.

Sporting an erection, which poked ridiculously behind
him, David remembered the sight he had last seen. He
made a futile attempt top rub his erection against the
bedclothes by lying on his back and wriggling. Never
before in his life had he known what it was like to
have an erection that his hands could not reach. The
choice as to whether or not to masturbate was no longer
his. It was ridiculous and unfair, exasperating, not to
mention uncomfortable. He was locked in with nothing
but fantasies to keep him company. He could gain no
sexual relief, and little pleasure. His erection became
so bothersome that eventually he gave up, and once
again did as Karin had suggested. He filled the bidet
with cold water, and sat down to cool off his lust.
Something he had to do several times during the
evening.

Karin didn't return for hours, it must have been around
midnight when David heard voices, then giggling and
laughing coming up the stairs. Finding it complicated
to kneel, he again bent over and peeked through the
keyhole. He was inflamed with jealousy and desire as he
saw Karin, with a man. They were necking, and stroking
their hands over each other's bodies. She was now
beside her bed, groping him. Her passion astounded
David, as he watched her squirming her body against the
man. She was panting, hot with lust.

What David could not know was that Karin's arousal was
partially, if not mostly stimulated by the thought of
making David watch. The other man was just another
object to be used in her games. With some difficulty in
the restricting outfit David knelt, squashing his
genitals against the floor, further adding to his
discomfort and indignity in order to get his eye
against the keyhole.

Karin tore at the man's belt, and dropped his trousers
and underpants as she fell back upon the bed, pulling
him with her. She wriggled to help the man pull off her
panties and moaned with pleasure as she pulled him on
top of her. She helped him enter her, and he instantly
started bucking and pumping. Certain that David would
be watching, Karin looked towards the door and groaned
in ecstasy. She was moving vigorously up against the
man, meeting his thrusts, as she rushed headlong
towards her climax. Her first orgasm came in seconds
and she pushed the man down the bed towards her vulva.
His face was soon in position and as his tongue pushed
deep into her, Karin's hand moved in a blur against her
clitoris.

David felt humiliated by his own position as he watched
Karin's face, he had never seen a woman's face express
so much ecstasy and pleasure. After her second climax
she pulled the man back up her body, and as the man
pumped towards his own climax Karin's face contorted
with her cries of pleasure as orgasm followed orgasm.
The man slumped onto Karin as he pumped his own seed
deep within her.

Karin and the man collapsed together on the bed for
quite a while, apparently recovering from their
passion. Eventually David saw Karin kneel up and crawl
down the bed, she turned her back to David so that his
view was between her parted legs. There she sucked the
man back to erection. David watched Karin's own hand go
between her parted thighs as she knelt so blatantly
exposed to him. Karin toyed with herself as she licked
and sucked the man's genitals. This was perhaps the
greatest of all humiliations for David. To see the
woman he revered give herself to another in that way,
the woman who denied him so much. He heard them both
moan as the man obviously came in her mouth.

How could she, after all she said about men, behave in
such an abandoned manner with another? It didn't make
sense to him! She must like it both ways? Then why not
with him?

It must have been long past one in the morning before
they had both left the room. Karin was again
respectable, her panties replaced and now wearing a
negligee. David returned to sit on his bed in abject
misery. Some ten minutes later her voice announced over
the speaker to David, "That was a real man in action,
wanker." Karin must be alone downstairs, he concluded,
as he heard her laughter before she released the
microphone button. She must have known he would be
watching, and she had obviously enjoyed that knowledge.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This story is one of over 400 stories you can read on the
DOMestic web site or on CD-ROM

* * * next message * * *

UK porn censorship and hypocrisy
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:40:47 +0100
From: "Christine" at u4ds.com

Hello,

If we lived in an ideal world, I'd be the first to defend the UK
Home Secretary against the eagerness of the gutter press to do
an expose on her husband watching adult movies.

However, the UK is not an ideal place, it has a recent law which
took effect in January harassing private individuals which we
reported in the thread "UK censorship and porn possession law
comes into effect". (link displays here on blog)

One of the advocates of this law is Jaqui Smith, Britain's first
woman Home Secretary who has taken a stance on the sex
industry, pledging to introduce tough licensing laws for adult
clubs. She is the person responsible for regulating the adult
entertainment industry in the UK.

So, it is with dismay that I see the front page news today was
that this same Jaqui Smith has claimed House of Commons
expenses, paid by the tax-payer, for the cost of watching adult
films. This is the same Ms Smith who also claimed tax-payer
funded allowances for her real home, on the basis that her first
home was a room no bigger than a cupboard under the stairs at
her sister's house.

She says she abided by the rules by designating her sister's
house as her main residence, allowing her to claim payments on
the real Redditch constituency home she actually lives in and
shares with her husband and children.

The Home Secretary, submitted the bill for adult movies as part
of a claim for television services even though she had not been
at the family home on the dates in April last year when the
adult films were viewed. The BBC covered the story here:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7970492.stm

Her husband who also gets 40,000 pounds from the UK tax-payer
for being her assistant has apologised for embarrassing her as
it was he who viewed the films in question.

The Virgin Media bill submitted as a supposedly legitimate
expense on her so called second home included two 18-rated items
listed as "additional features", which cost five pounds each to
view. Virgin Media have confirmed the phrase is a euphemism used
on their bills for films with an "adult content".

One has to question the ethical standards of a Home Secretary
who has already claimed well over 150,000 pounds from the
British tax-payer for her family home "within the rules" as a
second home, although hardly within the spirit of the law. Such
tax-payer funds paid for her entertainment centre, DVD players,
two wide-screen televisions and two digital set-top boxes and
just about everything else in the home including the kitchen
sink.

Should a person with such moral and ethical standards be the one
the tax-payers are obliged to pay for spending her time
legislating over what adults do, read, and watch in the UK?

Another censorship issue also hit the news this week which may
serve to the lighten the mood is that the BBC reported that the
law-makers in parliament have their own web browsing 'censored'

One effect of that censorship is to block MPs' access to
articles written by at least one of their own who writes a
column on one of the web sites that is blocked.

If it wasn't for the fact that government should be a serious
issue done by sensible folk, I'd just want to say "grow up" and
"leave us alone" to the lot of them. As it is, we get the
politicians we deserve if we bury our heads in the sand, so
please consider very carefully just who you vote for at the next
election, and be sure to vote.

sincerely,
Christine at Ms-Christine.com

Renew or get your DOMestic password.

* * * next message * * *

Re: X: Fictionmania
Date: 28 Mar 2009 05:45:01 -0000
From: Heather

Terry wrote:

>they hope to have the site up and running again by the end of
>January 2009.

I was just wondering the status of Fictionmania as I have still
been unable to access their site and it is now the end of March
2009.

Thank you,
Heather Helm.

* * * end of messages * * *

The DOMestic discussion list. Now in our thirteenth year. The
password site now has over 6,700 files with well over 400
stories, plus pictures, and hundreds of articles. $26.99 for a
one year password. $16.99 for six months at:-

The Fem Dom Training Program.
Warning! Turns your wife/lover into a Dominatrix

* * * end of digest * * *