I think it would be kind of sexy to try it, but I also think it'd probably be pretty boreing for most the males since sex acts wouldn't be allowed. Ie no fucking no sucking no anal. Any fingering would have to be done with gloves only. It'd be mostly bdsm acts like spanking an cropping and flogging and such and it'd probably have to be very light to mild since I'm not really into pain unless extreamly turned on.
Also I was wondering if an objectification girl was ok with female to female acts, could a girls dom order his sub to do acts upon the objectification girl? Or just the males. Cause I think a little girl on girl action would be hot.
Also I was wondering if an objectification girl was ok with female to female acts, could a girls dom order his sub to do acts upon the objectification girl? Or just the males. Cause I think a little girl on girl action would be hot.
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Mon, June 9, 2008 - 8:47 AMI don't know whether it would be to my taste. That would depend on the event, my mood, etc.
However, I'm sure that at the last event I saw a number of people in a modest line to play with a girl who was offered with similar rules. So I'm positive that there's room for a girl with these sorts of rules and that she'd get some attention.
I can't speak to girl-on-girl. I don't see any particular problems with it, but it's really a question for Stefanos.
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Mon, June 9, 2008 - 9:44 AMSince everything must be negotiated, if you can negotiate it you can do it. -
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Mon, June 9, 2008 - 9:07 PMthat's cool cause I think it'd be hot. Women and play with them push my buttons big time. Plus I think it'd be hot to have no say who gets to touch you as long as you're safe and it wasn't outside of your limits. -
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Tue, June 10, 2008 - 9:52 AMin the past I've been of service to Stefanos and had Girls Objectified for the Masters Den, I've not done this now for 2 parties, and I sorta miss it, objectification is one of my huge kinks. I'm Dominant but being allowed to objectify girls at Masters Den gives me something to do for the theme of the party. sooooo I'd objectify you within your limits ! I even have a sign all ready .. it says ..
Finger fuck a slut for a penny !
teehee,,
August -
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Wed, June 11, 2008 - 8:40 AMLaughing happily at august's post. Good to hear:)
Now if i can ever get James to agree to letting me be up on the objectification "block" so to speak:)
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Sat, June 14, 2008 - 4:36 PMI miss August being den mother to objectification girls. But if there isn't any sex it doesn't interest me. -
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Sun, June 15, 2008 - 11:15 AMGood thing you're not the only dom at DD then huh *hehehe*
-
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Wed, July 2, 2008 - 4:23 PMAugust: I am totally up for this!
-
-
-
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Wed, June 25, 2008 - 6:13 PMI'm surprised that there aren't a lot of dominants jumping at this chance... I thought the whole problem with dominant non-participation *was* the objectified submissives who were offering sex acts? I.e., the submissives who have been offered for sexual acts in the past haven't gotten played with very much, or at all... to the point that doms were specifically guiding their submissives away from offering themselves for something sexual to spare them the big blow to self-esteem that often resulted.
For example, a woman who was objectified and offered to be fingered for nickels (or some similar coinage), only got one or two doms playing with her all night. Other women who have been available for "traditional" sex have also had no one who took them up on the offer. (Wasn't there a discussion about that a while back?)
I know there has been a lot of discussion elsewhere about why more men don't have sex at BDSM parties, or have sex at the Citadel, even though it's allowed - thoughts being that makes them too vulnerable, they're not comfortable performing in front of other men, some are concerned about size issues or performance issues in public, etc. - and those could be the same issues that come up (or don't come up ;-) ) at Master's Den parties.
I don't know... any thoughts? -
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Thu, June 26, 2008 - 9:42 AM"I don't know... any thoughts? "
I don't seem to have any of those problems in general. I've had sex a number of times in Citadel, including basic fucking in the large room down stairs.
I've waited in line to fuck an objectification girl once. It was an interesting experience that I'm glad I had but have no interest in making a career out of. For me, it was novel, but not particularly emotionally or physically/sexually satisfying. I'll probably try it again another time, perhaps with a different girl, or a slightly different context, but I'm in no real hurry.
I'm not familiar with the situations you've mentioned. So my suggestion would be that there may be people present who genuinely don't understand that there is an open offer for them to participate. We get the idea so drilled into our heads that one doesn't step into other people's scenes and that concept becomes so sacred that even a naked girl with "fuck me" written on her chest isn't generally taken as an invitation. It wasn't until someone specifically asked me directly, one to one, if I wanted to participate, that it even occurred to me that the invitation might be open _to_ _me_.
I know stephanos has, at times, made announcements to this fact, but somehow a general announcement that "objectification girls are available" doesn't really spell out to me that I, personally, am invited to fillintheblank with thisgirlrighthere under theseparticularconditions. And even then consent seems a bit hazy to me, (although I get that that's likely how it's going to be in such a situation).
For the record, the girl I participated with was pulling a train. She had a line of people for some time who were all being sexual. So it certainly does happen in some cases. -
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Tue, July 1, 2008 - 4:49 PMSomebody didn't look under the poker table, apparently.... -
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Wed, July 2, 2008 - 4:33 PMDaddy did say there was a lady there to give blow jobs to the doms at the table. he wasn't interested though because he has no interest in being pleasured by any one but me. -
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Wed, July 2, 2008 - 4:54 PMShe was also offering footrubs...but I guess that would count as pleasuring, too. ;) -
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Wed, July 2, 2008 - 5:14 PMI don't think Daddy knew that. All though he thinks his feet are gross so he w*ouldn't of accepted one but I would of taken it, in his place, me being the good girl I am* LOL*
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Mon, July 28, 2008 - 10:13 AMThe dom at the table passed down a little card under the table to place one's order. -
-
Re: How many dominants would be interested in objectification girls who were not allowed sex acts?
Fri, August 1, 2008 - 4:56 PMOh I didn't know that I was busy socializing every where else but the table.
-
-
-
-
-
-