Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

SL Letter of the Day: Dominance/Coincidence

Posted by on Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:59 PM

I'm a 33-year-old woman and got divorced a few months ago. I think of myself as open and communicative and GGG. In my marriage we explored some dom/sub play and fetishes, but always within the context of the committed relationship. When I started dating again, I was surprised when the first two men I dated told me they were "dominant" on the first date.

In both cases, as things progressed, it seemed to me that they were both really only interested in sex—the kind where they called all the shots and it was difficult for me to get comfortable enough to orgasm. Though both of these men seemed like great people out of bed (funny, well rounded, interesting to talk to), I couldn't handle how emotionally disconnected the sex was. And I was surprised by the similarities in their behavior once things got physical—lots of abrupt position changes and them telling me what to do.

I've been hesitant to date anyone else since these experiences. I feel like both of them exhibited really bad sex etiquette, but I had a hard time knowing what to do in response to get what I needed. Going forward, do you have any advice on how to screen out the sexually selfish before things get physical? And is there some new hipster dominance craze going around, or am I out of touch?

Neither One Noticed She's Underwhelmed Basically

My response after the jump...

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I think you're reading way too much into what sounds like a coincidence, NONSUB. If the first two guys you slept with after your divorce both happened to be guys with perfect teeth who were lousy in bed, you wouldn't have written to me about a "craze" for orthodontia and bad sex—and you wouldn't afraid to get out there and date, for fear of running into more guys with pretty teeth and shitty moves. You would've thought, "Well, that was a weird coincidence," and then logged back on OKCupid or Match.com or Actors Mingle or whatever.

But in answer to your question: No, I don't think D/s play is a hipster craze. But I do know that people who into D/s are more likely to put it out there these days. And that kind of openness is a good because that kind of directness not only makes it easier for Doms to find subs and vice-versa, it also spares people who aren't into D/s play from wasting their time on people who are.

So, NONSUB, here's what you say the next time a guy says he's a "dominant" on your first date: "Really? That's too bad, you dear boy! Because while I can get into some kink, I'm definitely not a sub. Check, please!"

 

Comments (46) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
I see what you did there.
Posted by pParkerT on June 24, 2014 at 2:11 PM · Report this
2
Does "dominant" now simply mean "I want to behave like the selfish misogynist men in all the porn I watch"?
Posted by codswallower on June 24, 2014 at 2:17 PM · Report this
Keekee 3
@2:
Pretty much.
Posted by Keekee on June 24, 2014 at 2:20 PM · Report this
4
@1 You beat me to seeing what Dan did there.
Posted by Pablo Picasso on June 24, 2014 at 2:20 PM · Report this
originalcinner 5
I didn't see it at first. But then I did.
Posted by originalcinner on June 24, 2014 at 2:33 PM · Report this
Tim Horton 6
Seems to be confusion/overlap in the use of dominant in the general sense vs. Dom in the BDSM sense. These men probably told you they were dominant because they figured out that women, in general, like men who are sexually confident/assertive in the bedroom. They use dominant as a catch-all (FWIW, in my single days almost all women I dated said something to the same degree: they liked it a bit rough, to be thrown around etc. I may well attract this type, but I digress).

It seems like these lousy lovers watch too much porn - thus the rapid position changes, the unemotional pumping, barking of lewd instruction and the fact they mirrored each other. These guys probably aren't really dominant, they probably said that because they thought you wanted to hear it, and thought it would turn you on enough to get you into bed quicker. Just speak up for yourself sexually and see if you can't turn these great funny men but faux doms into attentive lovers/boyfriends.
Posted by Tim Horton on June 24, 2014 at 2:51 PM · Report this
nocutename 7
I have seen a definite, what I consider to be porn-inspired change in the way people have sex from how it was 30 years ago. I don't think this is as much a coincidence as Dan does. The constant position-changing really signals porn to me.
Posted by nocutename on June 24, 2014 at 2:58 PM · Report this
Callie 8
Yah, I gathered that she likes to sub, especially if she slept with them after them telling her they like to Dom. The problem is, they are speaking two different languages. In the D/s world "Dom" doesn't necessarily mean "heartlessly fuck you like a piece of meat like I see the guys in pornos do," but that is what these guys meant.
Posted by Callie http://www.facebook.com/Klosetnerd on June 24, 2014 at 2:59 PM · Report this
9
I am wondering how these encounters went down. Would it be so bad to tell a new partner, "Hey, stop that" or "I'm not ready yet" or "Slow the fuck down right now"?
Posted by wxPDX on June 24, 2014 at 3:00 PM · Report this
Ophian 10
Yeah, they don't sound like doms, they just sound like jerks who confuse porn with what sex actually is.

It's good that BDSM is more mainstream/disclosable these days, but--as with polyamory--there needs to be some kind of peer review or trade-organization sanction.

That chicken is certified as organic by the American Poultry League [or whatever], and that guy is certified as Genuine Dom, and isn't just some douche who thinks dominance is about not giving a shit about the person he's masturbating into.
Posted by Ophian on June 24, 2014 at 3:08 PM · Report this
nocutename 11
Ophian, I love the idea of peer-reviewed domdom, complete with certification. I imagine asking for someone's credentials.
Posted by nocutename on June 24, 2014 at 3:25 PM · Report this
Helix 12
"you dear boy"

Excellent. I hope this gets worked into every LotD and Savage Love proper.
Posted by Helix on June 24, 2014 at 3:28 PM · Report this
nocutename 13
Joking aside, I don't think you should have to study up on how to dom, or get a certificate of approval, but I do think that for many clueless guys who watch a lot of porn, being what they think of as a "dom" is a convenient way to be a thoughtless, selfish (not in the good way) asshat.

A good dom is far from selfish. (And I say this from the position of someone who likes to be a bit of a ragdoll and definitely likes to be submissive.)
Posted by nocutename on June 24, 2014 at 3:29 PM · Report this
14
I have a general rule - whenever someone says "I am [adjective]" I assume the opposite is true until proven otherwise.

And yeah, being a good dom doesn't mean being completely self-absorbed. It means taking responsibility for giving the other person a good experience.
Posted by Chase on June 24, 2014 at 3:48 PM · Report this
15
I like "porn sex", personally, and back in my single days was fortunate enough to meet a few ladies who also enjoyed it. (They do exist!) There's a way to incorporate it and still be a thoughtful, respectful sexual partner. I guess what I'm saying is, liking rough porny sex with lots of position changes doesn't automatically make you a bad person, and people who like that sort of thing should be able to have their fun too. No?
Posted by Barmy Fotheringay-Phipps on June 24, 2014 at 4:17 PM · Report this
16
@15 (and love the username, old thing): Sure, people who like rough porny sex should be able to enjoy it. But I think it's, well, not quite a kink, but a grade above vanilla — at the very least something which should get verbal consent before initiating.

And if you're not comfortable enough with the person in your bed to say "Hey, this isn't working for me, please stop/slow down/be more gentle," then you might want to wait a bit more (and fool around without having sex a bit more) before having actual sex with the person.

Posted by Action Kate on June 24, 2014 at 4:39 PM · Report this
biffp 17
@9, thought Girls did a good episode with Adam about that. She might want to watch that for ideas on how to speak up about being treated like meat.
Posted by biffp on June 24, 2014 at 4:56 PM · Report this
18
@17 Is Girls worth the bandwidth to obtain, and the hours to watch? I heard a lot about it during airing and summer is a good time for a new series.
Posted by wxPDX on June 24, 2014 at 5:15 PM · Report this
19
I don't see what he did there *confused*
Posted by Hanoumatoi on June 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM · Report this
20
Another vote for these guys having sex confused with porn. Gotta shut that down on the spot. If the discourse can't accommodate that, maybe screen dudes harder before going to bed with them? If you can say that, and they can't listen and reboot, it was nice to visit but you/I need to go home now.
Posted by Moggadeet on June 24, 2014 at 5:31 PM · Report this
nocutename 21
@15, 16: Are we going all Jeeves/Woosterish around here now? I hope so.

Hortensia Spink-Nottle
Posted by nocutename on June 24, 2014 at 5:48 PM · Report this
22
I will say that when I was dating people I met online, I found that guys who said they were "dominant" meant something different from what I thought they meant. They weren't into appreciating my submission, they weren't into me at all. It felt like I was being used as a masturbatory device. In contrast, a term that has kept most of its meaning is "sadist." If someone says they're a sadist, they probably do like delivering pain.

As for how to speak up for yourself, it depends on whether you're still hot for the guy. If so, say something positive like "Oh, this pounding is great but I really need to suck your cock right now." Or, if you like the position you're in and he goes to change, you can say, "Wait, wait, oh, oh, don't stop, don't stop!"

On the other hand, if you're already pretty sure that you're not going to see him again, then I'd say something like "oh, wow, this is amazing, whew, but just give me a sec, I really need a drink of water." Once you're up... you don't have to come back if you're not feeling it. "Oh, geez, look at the time."

Posted by EricaP on June 24, 2014 at 6:05 PM · Report this
nocutename 23
@EricaP: But some of us are submissive without being masochistic, so I hesitate to just rely on sadist. I wish there was a better way to figure out who was on the same page . . . oh, I guess that could be really discussing!

Posted by nocutename on June 24, 2014 at 6:24 PM · Report this
Tim Horton 24
@23 and others: I think men get a bad rap/generalization for being selfish lovers and using women as masterbation devices. Most men really want to please women. Trust me, the male ego is tied up in their sexual prowess, i.e. being known as the best lover their female partner ever had. These guys are putting on the performace they think their women want.

I think the confusion comes from men misinterpreting what women want: men desiring women so badly that it unleases a raw animalistic passion and a "must take her now" approach. Men see this played out with the porn technique. After all, porn is directed in a way that appeals to men, so it should be no surprise porn style sex is pleasurable to men.

Combine this with the fact the man is by and large controlling the tempo with both positioning and thrusting, you get a scenario that works well for him and he THINKS is working well for her. The LW describes these men as funny, well-rounded and interesting out of the bedroom. No indication the LW told these men they were doing it wrong.

Of course, women speaking up for their own sexual preference isn't entirely a new problem. After all, women's romance novels focus on male lead characters who effortlessly know how to "dominate" and satisfy the female lead without ever having the unromantic conversation of what actually turns the woman on. See e.g. the wild success of 50 Shades

Posted by Tim Horton on June 24, 2014 at 6:57 PM · Report this
nocutename 25
@24: Tim Horton, I understand what you're saying. And I think that many women want to feel that they're inspiring so much desire in the man so badly that it unleashes a raw animalistic passion and a "must take her now" approach. Speaking for myself, I love that feeling. But being "taken" doesn't mean that you shift position every 1.5 minutes. It doesn't mean that you're not considered, that your pleasure doesn't appear to matter. There's a difference. It's perfectly possible to be swept away by passion or lust and still check in to see if your partner is actively participating, if she appears to be enjoying herself. There's sexual variety and there's a sort of sexual ADHD, and the two are pretty different.
Posted by nocutename on June 24, 2014 at 7:11 PM · Report this
26
Tim, I don't care if they believed they were giving me what I wanted. They probably did. I spoke up at the time, but they weren't capable of giving me what I wanted, or they weren't interested -- I don't care which. The sex wasn't satisfying and we weren't compatible. I'm not addressing men in general here, just the guys I dated who called themselves dominant.

I learned that unless they had a whole history to tell me over dinner about their long-term BDSM relationships, they weren't really kinky the way I am.
Posted by EricaP on June 24, 2014 at 8:04 PM · Report this
Alison Cummins 27
The doms I’ve enjoyed being with did not announce it on the first date. It just kind of came out through the rhythm of our interactions. If they have to announce it, they probably aren’t.

A lot of this is about the dance. Who extends an invitation, and how; how the invitation is received; what happens next. It’s very individual. I’ve had enough sexual partners to know that it’s not that easy to find someone who dances the same dance you do, to the same rhythm. I’ve met really nice people who I am unable to have really nice sex with. We each have had good sex with other people, just not with eachother. Something about the rhythm of communication not being there.

If you’re concerned about meeting more of these guys, tell them it’s ladies first. If they want to run the fuck they need to run it in such a way that you come first. If they don’t know how to do that then they aren’t ready to dom yet.
Posted by Alison Cummins http://cleanmyscreen.peghole.com/ on June 24, 2014 at 8:20 PM · Report this
28
@27 I wouldn't want to meet a creepy subtle dom who doesn't announce it. Moreover, I wouldn't want to participate in any dances.
Posted by puddles on June 24, 2014 at 10:56 PM · Report this
Alison Cummins 29
puddles, the ‘dance’ is sex. You’re welcome to jig.

And I shouldn’t have said ‘dom,’ All I meant was partners who prefer to do the seducing and to run the fuck. If someone announces, “I prefer to do the seducing” on the first date that’s just weird. Usually what happens is that if they are into you they just go ahead and try to seduce you. If you also prefer to do the seducing then it’s just going to be clumsy and not feel right. It may not work. If I kiss them the first time and they feel like something has been taken away from them, we might still have sex but it’s going to be bad.

I can have good sex with partners who prefer to run the fuck if they run it for my benefit, but it feels constraining. If they have no idea what I want and no idea how to find out, then I try to tell them and then they feel like I’m trying to take the lead and get resentful. Then the sex is just bad.

I prefer to have sex with a partner who’s happy for me to take the lead some of the time but who always actively participates. If I kiss them first and it turns them on; if I tell them to flip over and they do instead of demanding to know why; if they ask me what I like; if I can bask in their arms while they play with me — I’m going to be comfortable and happy. If I need to hold back so that the decisions are all theirs, or if they want to do all the basking and being played with ... not so much.

Finding a partner who likes the same balance of lead and follow that I do is not easy, which is hard for me to grasp because I can’t imagine being any other way.
Posted by Alison Cummins http://cleanmyscreen.peghole.com/ on June 25, 2014 at 1:47 AM · Report this
31
@Alison Cummins all I meant is that I prefer directness. Some people order to not play games and just put everything out there, including who prefers to do what, so they would prefer a dom who says they're a dom.
Even your description of the whole thing reads to confusing to me. :)
Posted by puddles on June 25, 2014 at 2:29 AM · Report this
32
* prefer not order
Posted by puddles on June 25, 2014 at 2:30 AM · Report this
Registered European 33
@10 Unfortunately, "what sex actually is" is apparently changing in a direction influenced by porn.
Posted by Registered European on June 25, 2014 at 5:51 AM · Report this
Alison Cummins 34
puddles, I prefer directness too. For instance, the last seduction I was involved in looked like this:

While walking down the street chatting, Other Person extends an invitation to seduce: “I have a fantasy where I am jumped by a pack of cougars.”

Alison accepts the invitation: “Like this?”, kissing OP.

OP moves the seduction forward: “Oh my. I like kissing you.”

Alison extends the next invitation: “Would you like me to go to your place tonight?”

OP accepts invitation: “Yes, I would like that very much.”

*** *** ***

This seduction ultimately worked out extemely well. It’s possible though that communication could have become blocked at any time. In this scenario we were both explicit, we both extended and accepted invitations, I gave the first kiss and this move was positively reinforced. I did not announce over coffee, “I am a vanilla switch” and the OP did not respond, “Cool, me too!” but the fact that the seduction was completed established that we respond to one another in ways that are mutually pleasing and that make sense to us. Neither of us were being creepily subtle.

Things that could have blocked the interaction:
> We could both have been subs waiting for the other to move first.
> We could have both been *really* subby and wanted the other to move first without any invitation at all.
> We could both have been doms, the invitation being, “I have a fantasy of jumping a younger, inexperienced partner” and not accepted.
> We could both have been doms and when I kissed the OP they could have gotten all flustered and annoyed and not been sure why, but in any case would not have moved things forward by saying something positive.
> Directness could have been a turn-off for one of us.
> One of us might have preferred different timing, with a prolonged seduction phase spanning weeks or months.

In these different examples I could try to unblock things by making a move even though I’m too subby to feel good about it. Or by holding back and letting the OP recover from my kiss and encouraging them to express their dommyness while I bit my tongue and sat on my hands and was silently resentful. I could have put a lot of effort into sidestepping the OP’s invitations so as to drag out the seduction phase to a pace I was more comfortable with. We could still have had sex but it wouldn’t have been good.
More...
Posted by Alison Cummins http://cleanmyscreen.peghole.com/ on June 25, 2014 at 6:20 AM · Report this
35
There are a lot of comments asking why LW didn't speak up during the sexual encounters.
In a relationship that's a fair critique.

But when a woman goes to bed with someone outside of her social group, she is going to bed with a stranger.
She's taking a leap of faith based on her judgement of the person.

So when a funny, well-rounded, interesting man who seems like he would be attentive to her needs treats her like a fuck doll, it's a reasonable response for her to stop being an active participant in a sexual encounter, and start trying to get out of there with the least amount of physical and emotional damage done.
A 33 year-old woman has been with enough partners to know that trying to communicate her needs and desires to someone who has stopped treating her like a person has very bad odds.
The most likely thing to happen is that the partner will get insecure and blame her for not enjoying it (you just need to relax, all the other girls love this), while redoubling his efforts to make her come by doing the thing she just objected to.
Second most likely, he gets angry and violent.
Stopping what he is doing and listening respectfully to her desires is a very distant third.

If you are one of those few men in the third group, you may have more success if you save the hardcore stuff for when trust has been established between you further on in the relationship.

(Unless this is an agreed upon scene with someone you've met because they were looking for that. Then have fun, and check in often)
Posted by just_me27 on June 25, 2014 at 6:23 AM · Report this
36
Years ago I went out with a woman who shifted positions quite frequently. I think she actually did it in an effort to please. But she was like the pianist who can play Mozart technically perfectly, but with no soul.
Posted by David Holzman on June 25, 2014 at 6:31 AM · Report this
37
Mr Horton's "trust me" at least has some validity here - although the unnecessary erasure gives me an LMB. (I am much less inclined to quote passages from Iris Murdoch at those opposite-sexer men - and women - who take the time to specify that they refer to men who have, seek or desire female partners rather than appearing to generalize that all men do so. That is much of the point of Homocentric August.) But I do want to thank him for at least having considerable knowledge and experience of the subject about which he asks us to trust him.

But, back on point, did anyone else, back when Mr Savage was confronted by It during his visit to U of C, follow the link to the article trying to exonerate him and read the comments? What struck me particularly was the comment of one student writing something to the effect of, "trust me, Dan Savage has done more to silence trans voices and hurt their cause than Rick Santorum ever has". My response was to wonder exactly why we should trust a completely unknown college student making such a broad generalization without even defining any terms.

And, to bring this back on topic, only a day or two ago I heard a highly entertaining (inadvertently) video from one of the MRA/MGTOW set who still engages with women on the FWB level and who didn't even seem all that anti-gay. But he kept saying "trust me" about things clearly outside of his realm of expertise (which, as he sounded about age fifteen, wasn't all that broad). He described himself as Dominant, and related how Women Like Being Dominated (even getting highly irritated at his universalizing, I nearly laughed out loud at his pontificating tone) because it Makes Them Feel Safe, which Makes Them Feel Protected. (At least he'd come up with a generalization to which a reasonable number of women could respond with *personal* agreement; the general trend among the MRA set appears to be espousing views that regard one or other fringe de la fringe of women as being the mainstream norm. Still, he appeared not quite clear yet on the concept that Women Who Have Enjoyed Sex With Him is a subset of Every Woman On The Planet and not necessarily all that representative.)
More...
Posted by vennominon on June 25, 2014 at 7:14 AM · Report this
Alison Cummins 38
Tim Horton @24, If someone is into their partner they want to be their best partner ever. As far as I know this goes for men, women and SOPOTGS.

If they are not into their partner they may put on a certain type of performance that they believe demonstrates self-confidence or they may treat their partner as a masturbatory device,

In the heterosexual meat market, sexually available women are usually the ones able to be choosy. Paradoxically, this means that their male partners may be going home with them not because they are into them but because nobody else has chosen them. This can end up in bad sex.
Posted by Alison Cummins http://cleanmyscreen.peghole.com/ on June 25, 2014 at 7:58 AM · Report this
39
Yyyeah, can someone explain what "Dan did there" other than not really take the LW seriously?
Posted by Ella May on June 25, 2014 at 11:51 AM · Report this
40
@39 It's in the last paragraph of his advice.
Posted by puddles on June 25, 2014 at 12:11 PM · Report this
Alison Cummins 41
@19, @39:

It’s right at the end of the blog post that was put up right before this one:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

Not that it’s worth it, but at least you won’t be confused by people explaining how clever they are to read all Dan Savage’s blog posts, in order.
Posted by Alison Cummins http://cleanmyscreen.peghole.com/ on June 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM · Report this
Philophile 42
@#2,6,7,8 etc -Another vote for too much porn and not enough sex ed/experience. I think Dan got this one wrong and this 'type' is definitely becoming more common. As well as women settling down with dogs and single motherhood..

@16 My screening advice is similar; slow down the progression. Just use hands one night, and see if they have some idea of what feels really good or can take enough instruction to learn. If they seem uninterested or unable to use their hands well or learn then walk. I think someone else suggested instating a 'she comes first' rule up front as well. Also, you can use this story to vet the next guy.. "two bad lays in a row, hope the third time's a charm." If he's actually dominant and cool he might reply "I'm not giving it to you until you're shaking on your knees begging for more." Or if he's otherwise cool I'd imagine he'd use the opening to ask you specifically what you're into. And if he's a douche he'll say there were no complaints from his exes and claim with no detail that you'll enjoy his dominance. Or slut shame you or some douchey thing. Point is, using words helps to vet guys too.
Posted by Philophile on June 25, 2014 at 2:58 PM · Report this
43
In my experience, the best way to tell an honest dom from a "I watch lots of porn and I don't listen to my partner" dom is to do something to control the encounter early on. Even if you're normally submissive. A simple "No, wait, I want to kiss this way" is an easy litmus test: some guys (and I'm using "guys" here deliberately) see this as an opportunity to "prove" themselves as dominant by showing how well they can ignore your preferences, while others will immediately check in with you (verbally or otherwise) and actually use communication to make sure you're both enjoying it. A guy who won't even let you direct a kiss is definitely not a guy you want to be in bed with, given the likelihood he'd be able to physically overpower you if you say "no" and he doesn't want to listen . . .
Posted by Slartibartfast on June 26, 2014 at 12:35 AM · Report this
sissoucat 44
@Alison Cummings

I envy you. My last seduction went like this :

Me : Do you think it would be a good idea to meet outside of work, because we can't talk much in here ?
Him : .... Yes... We have to talk about it, though...

One month goes by.

Me : I haven't seen you in a while, everything okay ?
Him : I haven't seen you either, did you avoid me ?
Me : Er, no, I've been working as usual...
Him : Can you give me your phone number ?
I give it to him.

After three days of waiting for a call, I give up. We meet at work but I don't stop to chat, though it seems he'd like to talk, but he can't find anything to say. One month goes by. Then, he calls !

Him : (names himself) Surprised ? So, when did you think I would call ?
Me : Well, never.
Him : Ah... But I've been trying to reach you, but you weren't there. So...
Me : Maybe we could eat together next Tuesday, in order to get to know each other ?
Him : ... We'll have to discuss this by phone. Let's call each other.
Me : Okay, but you'll call me.

Of course that tuesday has gone by without a call. I think, if he ever calls again, I'll tell him it's obviously not working. I'm pretty surprised he did call, though.
Posted by sissoucat on June 26, 2014 at 4:29 AM · Report this
Alison Cummins 45
sissoucat, my seduction was of someone I met through OKC. We were each interested in sex and we both knew it. We were able to communicate clearly and painlessly about where and when to meet. (“I’ll be in town at [date and time]. Does that work for you?” “Yes, shall I pick you up and we can grab a beer?” “That would be great but I prefer a coffee shop.” “Even better.”) Someone else might have found this interaction to be a turn-off — too fast, too efficient — but we were both happy with it. The only issue that needed resolving was whether we were specifically interested in sex with one another now that we’d met.

It sounds like your colleague and you wouldn’t have good sex though. Your communication isn’t meshing. He sounds like someone who wants to be bossed around and you sound like someone who wants to be pursued.

You could probably get somewhere next time (if there is a next time) if you said something like, “Look, do you want to fuck me or not? You’ve been dicking me around with excuses. If you want to fuck me, you need to meet me for a drink tomorrow night. Otherwise you’re clearly not interested and I don’t need to waste my time on you.” (That’s not promising sex, just setting conditions.) It puts you in charge and it makes him own his choices.

You’d probably have to keep up that attitude during sex as well. “You think I’m hot, don’t you? Well if you want some more of that you need to spank me hard, bend me over and fuck my ass/ eat my pussy until I come all over you/ buy me a nice meal and tell me I’m beautiful/ cuddle me afterwards instead of falling asleep/ [whatever else it is you want].”

If that’s fun for you, you could probably have good sex. If it’s not then it’s just as well you guys can’t get it together to make a date. It would be pointless.
More...
Posted by Alison Cummins http://cleanmyscreen.peghole.com/ on June 26, 2014 at 9:11 AM · Report this
46
@35 called it.
Posted by emmaz on June 26, 2014 at 8:40 PM · Report this
sissoucat 47
@Alison_Cummins

Thanks for the ideas. I will not try them with this guy though. Playing hide and seek and waiting for months may be his idea of a good time, but it sure ain't mine.
Posted by sissoucat on June 27, 2014 at 9:39 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy