has any 1 ever be tie up for fun

[Sephiroth]

i've done the tying a few times, but i refuse to be tied up myself, i would not enjoy it

 

[Hermiod]

It might seem funny but you should never leave someone tied up. It is probably a good idea to start off with Velcro or something else you can undo quickly.

 

[Kirk-Fu]

No. I tied someone else up though. They were into that so I did it for them. I had to stop after awhile because I don't like inflicting pain. Even if they are enjoying the pain it felt weird to be doing it. He wasn't happy I stopped. But I have to be comfortable in what I'm doing too.

As I said, if anyone doesn't want it then it shouldn't happen. Though bondage shouldn't be about pain. Bondage and S&M are, once again, entirely different things that tend to get lumped in together.

Well he was into both. I know there's a difference. I mentioned the pain part because he liked the S&M too. If it was just tying him up I probably could have handled it. I'd agreed to the Bondage part not the S&M.
Once I had him tied up he asked me to look under the bed. He'd stuck some whips, clamps etc. there. Since we'd already started I thought I could do it for him. But just the idea of hurting him turned me off.

 

[Hermiod]

^The consent part works both ways, it is not just the submissive partner who has to want to participate.

Sounds like he was topping from the bottom anyway.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There are those of us who find "normal" boring.

Good for you. But I'd gladly take the risk of being called that. It's just how I'm 'wired', I guess.

And this may not mean anything to you, but I (and most of those as boring as me, I suspect) would never call people like you names, just because you like to do things which I am definitely not able to handle. I thought we all agreed on some form of IDIC?

 

[Hermiod]

There are those of us who find "normal" boring.

Good for you. But I'd gladly take the risk of being called that. It's just how I'm 'wired', I guess.

And this may not mean anything to you, but I (and most of those as boring as me, I suspect) would never call people like you names, just because you like to do things which I am definitely not able to handle. I thought we all agreed on some form of IDIC?

What I consider boring is not an indicator of what I think about the people who do enjoy those things. IDIC is a very appropriate term here.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Spoiler: Adult talk follows

From the person doing the tying, there are two perspectives. First of all, you get to choose exactly how much pleasure the tied person receives and when (and listening to them beg when you delay). Second, there is the pleasure gained from giving pleasure to others.

From the tied person's perspective, there's the giving up control of your own pleasure to someone you trust.

It is not about the tied person being restrained for their partner's "use". That's D/S and that's a completely different thing.

Spoiler: Theoretical Talk

What would you call it if the woman is tied up or otherwise restrained by a Mad Scientist or Hostile Alien and you have to rescue her? Theoretically.

 

[Kestra]

I thought it was a rather common desire, so I'm a bit surprised at all the people that don't seem to be into it.

 

[TGTheodore]

No, but I like to properly conjugate verbs for fun.

And to happily split infinitives.

--Ted

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It might seem funny but you should never leave someone tied up. It is probably a good idea to start off with Velcro or something else you can undo quickly.

If it can be undone quickly, then what's the point?

 

[Kirkman1987]

the candlewax burnt me a bit as I said, but It was a pleasing feeling after the initial jolt though.

I don't think anyone has mentioned ice cubes yet. They have a really great sensation when you quickly rub them across your partner's back or along thier nipples.

I've used feathers before too. I think they are okay, but my GF likes them best, especially "down there"

 

[Good Will Riker]

Have I ever been tied up for fun?

Not since I was in the 4th grade with jump ropes at the playground.

 

[Hermiod]

It might seem funny but you should never leave someone tied up. It is probably a good idea to start off with Velcro or something else you can undo quickly.

If it can be undone quickly, then what's the point?

Safety.

Spoiler: Theoretical Talk

What would you call it if the woman is tied up or otherwise restrained by a Mad Scientist or Hostile Alien and you have to rescue her? Theoretically.

Spoiler: The answer

I'd call it a bit of harmless fun if everyone's in to it.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Oh, well. I was hoping it would have a special name, like "Geek Erotica" or "Nerdy Kink" or something.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

^The consent part works both ways, it is not just the submissive partner who has to want to participate.

Sounds like he was topping from the bottom anyway.

Sorry, but I've always found that to be a stupid concept. Like, there's only one way to engage in BDSM, and everyone who's different is wrong.

If someone wants me to go down on them in a certain way, that's fine, they're allowed to ask. But if they enjoy certain sensual experiences when tied up and they dare to ask for it, they're "topping from the bottom" and deserve to be single for the rest of their lives.

I prefer it if people tell me exactly what they want and what they are into. Playgrounds have boundaries.

 

[Hermiod]

^My counter argument is that in a D/S situation, the S stands for Submissive. It makes more sense to me to agree limits and a safeword at the start but after that the Dominant is in control.

That said, I'm not in the business of telling other people what they should be in to or how to be in to it.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

^My counter argument is that in a D/S situation, the S stands for Submissive. It makes more sense to me to agree limits and a safeword at the start but after that the Dominant is in control.

That said, I'm not in the business of telling other people what they should be in to or how to be in to it.

And my counter arguement is, BDSM doesn't have any letters that stand for "submissive".

A scene can involve a power exchange, so can a relationship. If the exchange goes to 100% it's not about both people's enjoyment and exploration any more, it's about one person's. That's why there's safe words.

It can be fun to give up total control, temporarily under safe conditions. But it's still about 2 (or more) people's needs, not one person's.

I have a sense from a lot of stuff I've read over the last couple of years, that the dynamic of a paying male controlling a scene with a hired female has created a lot of attitude on both ends that spills over into other relationships. You get a guy who wants wants wants and he finally finds an open minded lover and he's over the top. It's fair to tell him to calm down and think about what his top gets out of it too.

But I also automatically compare these comments to a male-dom female-sub dynamic, and frankly if a man was being that 100% over a woman it scares me. There's too much of that in society as it is. And when I think about things in gender neutral terms, I can't accept that a bottom has no input.

Things can be discussed beforehand. Once the boundaries are set, the top should be able to play creatively (which for me is what the thrill is) but staying in the boundaries. Within the boundaries, a bottom shouldn't be trying to micromanage. But input has to flow both ways, or may as well be playing with a maniquin.

 

[darkshadow0001]

i have how about you

As in a sexual act, no... but there's always a first time for everything!

 

[Hermiod]

And my counter arguement is, BDSM doesn't have any letters that stand for "submissive".

A scene can involve a power exchange, so can a relationship. If the exchange goes to 100% it's not about both people's enjoyment and exploration any more, it's about one person's. That's why there's safe words.

It can be fun to give up total control, temporarily under safe conditions. But it's still about 2 (or more) people's needs, not one person's.

I have a sense from a lot of stuff I've read over the last couple of years, that the dynamic of a paying male controlling a scene with a hired female has created a lot of attitude on both ends that spills over into other relationships. You get a guy who wants wants wants and he finally finds an open minded lover and he's over the top. It's fair to tell him to calm down and think about what his top gets out of it too.

But I also automatically compare these comments to a male-dom female-sub dynamic, and frankly if a man was being that 100% over a woman it scares me. There's too much of that in society as it is. And when I think about things in gender neutral terms, I can't accept that a bottom has no input.

Things can be discussed beforehand. Once the boundaries are set, the top should be able to play creatively (which for me is what the thrill is) but staying in the boundaries. Within the boundaries, a bottom shouldn't be trying to micromanage. But input has to flow both ways, or may as well be playing with a maniquin.

I don't disagree with you, really.

 

[MarianLH]

And my counter arguement is, BDSM doesn't have any letters that stand for "submissive".

That's technically incorrect. The BDSM acronym was created by adding B&D, D&S, and S&M together and eliminating the doubles. It is meant to provide an umbrella term for all three.


Marian