marked

I have published a short video on my more scurrilous blog Beau here.

It shows a young woman showing off the marks she has received from what looks to have been a full body caning. Compared with some of the pictures that are available on some sites it is not extreme - but it clearly was a severe beating the marks of shich will take some time to fade.

If it had been any more extreme than this I would not have published it - and I had doubts about publishing that one. Perhaps that is because of my own squeamishness. For a Dom I am afraid I am a bit of a wimp. I also do not like needles, blood or knife play. That is just personal taste and attitude I suppose and I know there are readers of this blog who perhaps engage in play where they may be marked as severely as this or even more so. There may be others though who find that level far too much and would not consider engaging in such play.

The woman clearly likes her marks even though (or perhaps I should say "because") they are severe. My own woman enjoys looking at marks from play even though they are nothing compared to those on the video. There are perhaps lots of reasons why subs enjoy looking at and feeling their marks and love to have been marked. Above all it is a sign of ownership and submission.

Despite the consensual nature of such play is there a point though at which I should be concerned for a sub who likes to be severely beaten and marked? Is there not a line that should not be crossed by a Dom even when the sub desires that he go further and treat her even more severely? Clearly lasting physical harm may be one line - but even if it is not lasting harm, is it always justifiable? Is there a point where one needs to think of the psychological health of the sub as well as the physical health? Is it always ok to desire such pain and marking?

Or am I just a big wimp?

On having your cake and eating it

Recently at a munch I met a sub who was married but whose husband would not dominate her in the bedroom. She travelled on business and when she was away from home she would go to munches hoping to meet a Dom who could meet her needs. I know other subs online whose husbands will not dominate them and who have searched elsewhere to have their needs met.

I received an email a little while ago from a sub with a question for Uncle Agony. Her boyfriend will not dominate her and she asks whether she can have her vanilla boyfriend and her Master at the same time. You can read her email and my response here. So can she have her cake and eat it?

I know there are readers of this blog who have a husband or vanilla partner who will not dominate them but also a Master as well. For some it is with and for others without the knowledge of their partner. So how did you come to this situation? How do you make it work? What do others think? Is this an appropriate solution to the problem of a partner who will not meet your needs or is it a betrayal of trust?

This has some parallels to our recent discussions on polyamory. There have been some very interesting recent comments on the most recent here. So if you are interested in the topic do go back and read them.

polyamory 2 - what women want

I think it is often thought - and sometimes by myself - that it is men who are more interested in polyamory than women. There is a stereotype of women being the faithful home makers while men are predatory and looking for fun with other women. yes, I know it is a stereotype but there are elements of it which I have felt may have some truth in them and I think it is a stereotype that many believe.

So I was interested to read this article recently, Women and sex: the myth-buster. It suggests that the opposite is the case, that women are not suited to monogamy. It also implies that this is because it is they who are often not satisfied sexually by their partners so have frustrated desires which they look to meet elsewhere. Is it not the case that it is the opposite that is often presupposed?

Fascinating article - I will be interested to hear how much readers agree with the discussion in it.