Many these subhumans do not make good boyfriends, partners, husbands or others you expect to step up, they already know life is unfair, and would survive just on pc 24/7 plus toilet and food. They wish they could interact with humanity , but they really are apathetic. The only activity they do is pushed, forced, directed through discipline and certain acts that might be outlawed by the Geneva convention. How would you deal with them at your door step begging to be re-intergrated into humanity, but don't know / or really desire/ human connections? asking for a friend?
Interesting. I think SF explains some kind of wham bam thank you ma'm patterns, yes, especially the more "submissive" ones. I don't think anything much in the way of advice for modern humans comes out of it, but as an idea, or at least a cool just so story this works.
As to chastity.
While I think that a drive to permanent no-orgasm (kinda conditional, and I very much appreciate how you sneaked this into the model, no erection) IS weird, I don't think there's anything weird whatsoever about a woman who wants her partner chaste, ESPECIALLY ONCE SHE REPRODUCED.
Because let's think about the use of partner's orgasm. It's a bonding tool. It's a powerful neurochemical release signal. On a vanilla ev psych ish level we want our lovers to come with us, and maybe through us, by us, because that makes them love us a li'l bit more, or keeps the love (intimacy, investment) going.
But if my lover seems to be doing and feeling all those things WITHOUT orgasms? Well then what's not to like?
Unless you ARE a specific kind of dominant who gets off on a thrill of having that power ("I MAKE them come", or in a lazy SkinS version "I make them make themselves come FOR ME"), or a pig headed sub or vanilla fixated on the notion of pleasing your lover and unable to defixate.
So at least a willingness to have a partner who doesn't come seems to make sense. This leaves a thorny (or rather smooth, hopefully) issue of penetrative sex which many women greatly enjoy and while a penis that never orgasms without insisting on hammering for hours in pursuit of said orgasm is a Great Thing, it's a rare rare rare thing.
Thus you end up with phallus aversion as a condition for chastity. But I think it's contingent. My own experience with an enthusiastic anorgasmic afab lover indicates that if orgasms are not needed to prop up the relationship and d/s dynamic, and penis isn't a concern at all, it ceases to become a big deal.
Now this:
>it’s the difference between him changing the TV channel whenever she asks, with the implicit possibility of negotiation each time, and him just giving her the remote.
...I can see why is attractive from the sub side. But surely you can see why NOT handing the remote over while having my requests fulfilled is MORE attractive from the pov of both work involved and power thrills? It's the existence of the implicit negotiation possibility that makes the compliance ALL THE BETTER. But then I'm pretty far on the "give yourself to me" end of the "sacrifice --- overpowering" dimension of dominance.
It's a difference between somone who stays still while being beaten vs having to restrain them. Different vibes. Both submissive of course.
>But if my lover seems to be doing and feeling all those things WITHOUT orgasms? Well then what's not to like?
I think that's true, but I think the Coquette Strategy explains why this is so compelling for some women - super normal stimulation.
> It's the existence of the implicit negotiation possibility that makes the compliance ALL THE BETTER. But then I'm pretty far on the "give yourself to me" end of the "sacrifice --- overpowering" dimension of dominance.
Yes. I think dominat*ing* and domin*ant* are two separate but often interwoven tracks.
Many these subhumans do not make good boyfriends, partners, husbands or others you expect to step up, they already know life is unfair, and would survive just on pc 24/7 plus toilet and food. They wish they could interact with humanity , but they really are apathetic. The only activity they do is pushed, forced, directed through discipline and certain acts that might be outlawed by the Geneva convention. How would you deal with them at your door step begging to be re-intergrated into humanity, but don't know / or really desire/ human connections? asking for a friend?
I can't tell whether this is a serious comment or not, or whether I have offended and you are being sarcastic!
Perhaps you could expand and be more specific?
Interesting. I think SF explains some kind of wham bam thank you ma'm patterns, yes, especially the more "submissive" ones. I don't think anything much in the way of advice for modern humans comes out of it, but as an idea, or at least a cool just so story this works.
As to chastity.
While I think that a drive to permanent no-orgasm (kinda conditional, and I very much appreciate how you sneaked this into the model, no erection) IS weird, I don't think there's anything weird whatsoever about a woman who wants her partner chaste, ESPECIALLY ONCE SHE REPRODUCED.
Because let's think about the use of partner's orgasm. It's a bonding tool. It's a powerful neurochemical release signal. On a vanilla ev psych ish level we want our lovers to come with us, and maybe through us, by us, because that makes them love us a li'l bit more, or keeps the love (intimacy, investment) going.
But if my lover seems to be doing and feeling all those things WITHOUT orgasms? Well then what's not to like?
Unless you ARE a specific kind of dominant who gets off on a thrill of having that power ("I MAKE them come", or in a lazy SkinS version "I make them make themselves come FOR ME"), or a pig headed sub or vanilla fixated on the notion of pleasing your lover and unable to defixate.
So at least a willingness to have a partner who doesn't come seems to make sense. This leaves a thorny (or rather smooth, hopefully) issue of penetrative sex which many women greatly enjoy and while a penis that never orgasms without insisting on hammering for hours in pursuit of said orgasm is a Great Thing, it's a rare rare rare thing.
Thus you end up with phallus aversion as a condition for chastity. But I think it's contingent. My own experience with an enthusiastic anorgasmic afab lover indicates that if orgasms are not needed to prop up the relationship and d/s dynamic, and penis isn't a concern at all, it ceases to become a big deal.
Now this:
>it’s the difference between him changing the TV channel whenever she asks, with the implicit possibility of negotiation each time, and him just giving her the remote.
...I can see why is attractive from the sub side. But surely you can see why NOT handing the remote over while having my requests fulfilled is MORE attractive from the pov of both work involved and power thrills? It's the existence of the implicit negotiation possibility that makes the compliance ALL THE BETTER. But then I'm pretty far on the "give yourself to me" end of the "sacrifice --- overpowering" dimension of dominance.
It's a difference between somone who stays still while being beaten vs having to restrain them. Different vibes. Both submissive of course.
>But if my lover seems to be doing and feeling all those things WITHOUT orgasms? Well then what's not to like?
I think that's true, but I think the Coquette Strategy explains why this is so compelling for some women - super normal stimulation.
> It's the existence of the implicit negotiation possibility that makes the compliance ALL THE BETTER. But then I'm pretty far on the "give yourself to me" end of the "sacrifice --- overpowering" dimension of dominance.
Yes. I think dominat*ing* and domin*ant* are two separate but often interwoven tracks.