Subs playing with other doms...

[Deleted Member]

Wasn't sure which category to pic, but possinly an age old question.

In any D/s dynamic I have always been comfortable with my sub playing with other men/people with a penis. However, I feel as though I am in a minority on this one. For a bit of context I am ENM, specifically polyamorous (which might play into it).

Nb. The reason I specify people with a penis is that it can include people who identify as other genders but have a penis and present more masc; often then being misgendered as cis male.

Another clarification is, if it is another Dom, this does not apply to overlapping aspects of things like being a caregiver. It relates solely to play, as otherwise this could lead to contradictory and confusing messages. It could very well be possible to work on a dynamic where this works, but it is not something I have been in a possition to explore. It also is not just about kink. The man/person with a penis they are with could have a different type of ENM dynamic that has nothing to do with D/s relationships.

Within this there is also no requirement that we "only play together" as I am fully comfortable with them having other relationships (again down to being polyam). It is down to all of us to consent to the types of interactions we have within a polycule. It is also the case that I am comfortable to play with another man/person with a penis (of any sexuallity) as the three of us. So no requirement to be looking for "only women or couples."

My experience on here is that D/s couples follow the opposite of me and I wonder if I am in a minority, and why. From Doms and subs I'd like to hear your perspectives on within D/s relationships you are either ok or not with inviting men/people with a penis, as a group or allowing a sub to play solo.

I have my own thoughts, but likely biased by my echo chamber of my mind and what I have read, as well as being polyam, so I'd like to hear other perspectives directly.

[PL****]

I am a submissive who is ENM and who lives D/s dynamic relationships within FWB relationships. I have also, previously been in PolyCues as well. I have also lived in LTR's that were monogamous but we allowed partners into our dynamics occasionally. In each case I had contracts or agreements (before I knew contracts were a thing) with my partners and as long as each agreed to their own dynamics within the relationship and that each partner was consented upon by the partners I was with, none of my doms ever seemed to have an issue with it. I dont know if Im one of the outliers like you yourself believe you are, but I have found most men/women who are okay with ENM are okay with a second penis or multiple penises in the relationship as long as terms are agreed upon prior by all parties involved.

[ey****]

So, in a minority... probably... but, most folk with different kinks/fetishes/dynamics are in some form of minority within the kink sphere - but the dynamic you describe is not overly uncommon 

like, even to the extent that there's people I know or have met who wouldn't describe themselves as ENM/etc but would permit their subs to play with others at events in some scenarios, or play with subs themselves 

I do guess controlling the sexual identification of the person the sub is permitted to play with can be a bit... eyebrow raising...  but yeah, this isn't uncommon 

[Deleted Member]

51 minutes ago, PLEASEandTEASEme said:

I am a submissive who is ENM and who lives D/s dynamic relationships within FWB relationships. I have also, previously been in PolyCues as well. I have also lived in LTR's that were monogamous but we allowed partners into our dynamics occasionally. In each case I had contracts or agreements (before I knew contracts were a thing) with my partners and as long as each agreed to their own dynamics within the relationship and that each partner was consented upon by the partners I was with, none of my doms ever seemed to have an issue with it. I dont know if Im one of the outliers like you yourself believe you are, but I have found most men/women who are okay with ENM are okay with a second penis or multiple penises in the relationship as long as terms are agreed upon prior by all parties involved.

That's good to know. I also wonder about the ones who don't identify somewhere under the ENM umbrella but still invite others in to play, but where people of particular sexual/gender identifications are not permitted.

[Deleted Member]

37 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

So, in a minority... probably... but, most folk with different kinks/fetishes/dynamics are in some form of minority within the kink sphere - but the dynamic you describe is not overly uncommon 

like, even to the extent that there's people I know or have met who wouldn't describe themselves as ENM/etc but would permit their subs to play with others at events in some scenarios, or play with subs themselves 

I do guess controlling the sexual identification of the person the sub is permitted to play with can be a bit... eyebrow raising...  but yeah, this isn't uncommon 

I think that is one thing that I am curious about, those who don't identify as ENM in some way, and are also restrictive in sexual/gender identities partners can play with. I can only come at it from my experience. To the same extent I can consent to a partner playing with anyone (as long as they are safe) someone can ask that their partner only play with certain people, and their partner consent to that. However, it always is the same scenario whereby it is men/people with a penis which is the non permitted part. That is as you say eyebrow raising to me. Which is why I also wonder from a subs perspective where in their relationship that desire/need comes from.

[ey****]

I think if you get into the typical "One Penis Policy" and the problems, is that it is about who is making the choices.  Which usually ties in with male fantasies and/or insecurities rather than their partners own choices and free will. (same is true for one vulva policies) 

 

I guess a little bit is... "ok, but I'm a Dominant and ergo I can make choices/restrictions on my subs other potential relationships/play/dynamics" which does happen a lot, but it's a case of how reasonable is that can depend on the individual dynamics. 

 

[Deleted Member]

4 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

I think if you get into the typical "One Penis Policy" and the problems, is that it is about who is making the choices.  Which usually ties in with male fantasies and/or insecurities rather than their partners own choices and free will. (same is true for one vulva policies) 

 

I guess a little bit is... "ok, but I'm a Dominant and ergo I can make choices/restrictions on my subs other potential relationships/play/dynamics" which does happen a lot, but it's a case of how reasonable is that can depend on the individual dynamics. 

 

That's where one penis policies appear to come in to play more than it would appear. Many people appear to be open to "Woman, Trans, Non-Binary" but not "Men," as restrictive as gender identification is on FET. So how are people with a penis who are non-binary, trans, gender fluid, etc. etc. viewed in these dynamics. FET is a bit annoying as it has me stuck as male but identify as non-binary (gender non-conforming to be precise) ans I've emailed to get it changed. On many occasions I have been told, from those dynamic, that I am not non-binary as I am too masc presenting and/or because I have a penis. Then it comes across that it is the male gaze rearing it's head that people with a vagina, no matter how they present, are acceptable as non-binary, or any other gender identities.

[ey****]

I can tell you a lot of the problem with that is that - a lot of dating sites use an off-the-shelf bundle they install which basically permits something like 5 options.   So you end up with this 'male', 'female', 'couple', 'trans', 'non-binary' and it causes it's own issues.  So that "trans" becomes a catch all and leans towards trans women, effectively erasing trans men - and non-binary can be limiting - this is before we get into many idendities this limitation erases.

[Deleted Member]

Great topic and points. I'll say it - men controlling women. That's a huge part of every dynamic in human life. It isn't the only aspect to talk about, but a major and important one and starting place for discussions like this.

@eyemblacksheep laid things out succinctly.

Also on the discussion table, social acceptance, core beliefs, how one were raised, religion, mental health status.. sexuality, Perception of each of these and other aspects!

Many folks who claim Polyam and or ENM, respectively, have their own ideas of what these mean/mean for themselves. We ARE free to define and engage in the dynamics and philosophies of our choosing and or making..

I myself am theoretically Polyamorous: I have believed, since childhood, that people can love/be in love with more than one person at a given time + that is never "wrong", whilst also recognising the logistical difficulty, as well as the mental and emotional loads which are present and all the machinations which are necessary to proceed in such situations.
This alone makes the responsibility of many dynamics 'too much' for those who merely want(ed) to perhaps just have more sex and sextivities etcetera.

I found out decades ago that My Polyam mind isn't the typical Polyam mind of most folks engaging in it/the perceptions/the reasons behind it and so on.

For me, when it's more about Dynamics and titles and rules than it is about the relationship with the person regardless of what kind of relationship it is, that's when I'm out. This is where I run into roadblocks with other folks and we part ways or don't even get started.

Do YOU view how You think and feel regarding Polyamoury as a problem at all, or just noticing the differences within and among the Polyam community itself?

[Deleted Member]

8 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

I can tell you a lot of the problem with that is that - a lot of dating sites use an off-the-shelf bundle they install which basically permits something like 5 options.   So you end up with this 'male', 'female', 'couple', 'trans', 'non-binary' and it causes it's own issues.  So that "trans" becomes a catch all and leans towards trans women, effectively erasing trans men - and non-binary can be limiting - this is before we get into many idendities this limitation erases.

However, on Feeld the same pattern arrises despite having over 20 identities on there. From my perspective and background (archaeologically and anthropologicaly) there are more identities in time and space than we can imagine, and for the most part have a western bias and gatekeeping, in many cases, of identities. I can't get mad if someone sees me as "male" based upon their own cultural background as more people will associate different, sometimes opposing, identies to me than I can have from my own perspective. However, thats where couples, particularly m dom/f sub seem disingenuous when eliminating "male" as a gender but including "couples, trans, non-binary" if their gaze is based upon sexual organs. Don't get me wrong, I am more than happy with my my relationships/dynamics and don't want to be involved with a couple where I feel my identity and sexuallity doesn't fit. However, I can't help but feel that it creates a toxic view of D/s relationships where gender and biological sex and/or sexual organs are conflated without any good reason other than male/dom insecurities.

[Deleted Member]

10 minutes ago, Take_A_Seat said:

However, on Feeld the same pattern arrises despite having over 20 identities on there. From my perspective and background (archaeologically and anthropologicaly) there are more identities in time and space than we can imagine, and for the most part have a western bias and gatekeeping, in many cases, of identities. I can't get mad if someone sees me as "male" based upon their own cultural background as more people will associate different, sometimes opposing, identies to me than I can have from my own perspective. However, thats where couples, particularly m dom/f sub seem disingenuous when eliminating "male" as a gender but including "couples, trans, non-binary" if their gaze is based upon sexual organs. Don't get me wrong, I am more than happy with my my relationships/dynamics and don't want to be involved with a couple where I feel my identity and sexuallity doesn't fit. However, I can't help but feel that it creates a toxic view of D/s relationships where gender and biological sex and/or sexual organs are conflated without any good reason other than male/dom insecurities.

Ooo good points about Western gaze and gatekeeping - I won't throw my country into this (they're busy, lol) but 'the West' sure does have some strong 'opinions' on how the world and its inhabitants should behave...

Fascinating that the most prevalent dynamic in this world presents itself as loudest even when the others are, have been present AND are louder than ever...

[Deleted Member]

18 minutes ago, NexumSange said:

Ooo good points about Western gaze and gatekeeping - I won't throw my country into this (they're busy, lol) but 'the West' sure does have some strong 'opinions' on how the world and its inhabitants should behave...

Fascinating that the most prevalent dynamic in this world presents itself as loudest even when the others are, have been present AND are louder than ever...

Definitely. Not to say that multiple gender identities haven't existed in "the West" for millenia, but it comes across that people forget that what is now might not be in 100 years, or have/have never been anywhere else on this planet for the past 5 million years of human history/evolution.

[wo****]

Saturday at 04:51 PM, eyemblacksheep said:

I can tell you a lot of the problem with that is that - a lot of dating sites use an off-the-shelf bundle they install which basically permits something like 5 options.   So you end up with this 'male', 'female', 'couple', 'trans', 'non-binary' and it causes it's own issues.  So that "trans" becomes a catch all and leans towards trans women, effectively erasing trans men - and non-binary can be limiting - this is before we get into many idendities this limitation erases.

Every system is imperfect and has flaws. Categories facilitate communication. Every chart has an other option so that every conceivable variation doesn’t have to be listed. Even if it did people would point out flaws with it anyway.

[ey****]

27 minutes ago, woburn169344 said:

 

Every system is imperfect and has flaws. Categories facilitate communication. Every chart has an other option so that every conceivable variation doesn’t have to be listed. Even if it did people would point out flaws with it anyway.

As a cis het white guy, I don't think you're in a good place to say who should be excluded 

[wo****]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. You may be of the mind that certain individuals have less value or worth than others because of certain immutable characteristics they happen to have. I’m not of that mind myself.

Also, I didn’t say anything about anyone who should or shouldn’t be excluded anywhere. Did you imagine I did? or did you just intentionally throw that in there in an effort to malign my character for other reasons? Is there some benign reason that I’m missing? Am I way off base?

[Deleted Member]

32 minutes ago, woburn169344 said:

Thanks for sharing your opinion. You may be of the mind that certain individuals have less value or worth than others because of certain immutable characteristics they happen to have. I’m not of that mind myself.

Also, I didn’t say anything about anyone who should or shouldn’t be excluded anywhere. Did you imagine I did? or did you just intentionally throw that in there in an effort to malign my character for other reasons? Is there some benign reason that I’m missing? Am I way off base?

The issue with the response was that everyone who doesn’t identify as Male, Female, Non-binary or Trans, can only list as other, when many other gender identities exist. But only having the option "other" is excludes and erases those identities by not including them. There is no harm in including them and makes those others feel seen. It is a common view held by many who identify as cis het white male as their identity has been included, particularly on forms, for generations. It wasn't long ago that the only options were Male and Female, and heterosexual didn't even need to be included as any other sexual identity was illegal. You might not be of that mind, but your response of "other" being there so that "every conceivable variation doesn't have to be listed" suggests that subconsciously those views are there.

[wo****]

1 hour ago, Take_A_Seat said:

The issue with the response was that everyone who doesn’t identify as Male, Female, Non-binary or Trans, can only list as other, when many other gender identities exist. But only having the option "other" is excludes and erases those identities by not including them. There is no harm in including them and makes those others feel seen. It is a common view held by many who identify as cis het white male as their identity has been included, particularly on forms, for generations. It wasn't long ago that the only options were Male and Female, and heterosexual didn't even need to be included as any other sexual identity was illegal. You might not be of that mind, but your response of "other" being there so that "every conceivable variation doesn't have to be listed" suggests that subconsciously those views are there.

SHOW ME where I SAID THAT.

I never said it.
I never implied it.
I never suggested it. Period. Full stop. You thinking that you can divine what is in my *** is ABSURD. My post doesn’t “suggest” that about my subconscious.
When I said other it was in reference to that being standard in charts referring to large numbers on all sorts of things and there are readily understood reasons for it that have nothing to do with prejudice or bias. That’s what my post suggests. It suggests it’s not just attributed to bias or prejudice in this particular case because this particular case exists in a grouping of lots and lots of cases that have nothing to do with this case, or humans at all for that matter. But because of YOUR bias YOU looked right past that. Instead you throw shots at me based off of YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. Your initial response makes it clear as day who has the bias. Your mind reading cap is BROKEN. I suggest that you rethink your use of it. I’m not surprised at all that all of the people who think they have the power to correctly read another persons mind based off of a post always wind up discovering something negative about the mind they read and always wind up be the victim themselves (or a friend or group they associate with is the victim).
Instead of trying to glean what is in the mind of others I suggest you spend the time examining what is in your own.
“Every time you point a finger at someone else, you are pointing three fingers at yourself.”

[ey****]

So, like. I get what you were implying which was that... with so many variations that there's inevitably going to be gaps. 

Though, that wasn't really even on topic with the thread. But hey ho.

What you were replying to from me is that the off-the-shelf dating package, which this site uses, permits 5 options - they're customisable so some sites use them differently.  But they're very limiting.  I mean, it's up from the three that used to be common 20 years ago (man, woman, couple) but - for example this site has a "trans" category which most users assume is then trans women - there is nowhere for trans men to file.  This has been a huge complaint in the past.  

Now, as a cis het white guy - I reckon there's never been a website where we've had to define ourselves from dropdowns and gone "I'm not happy with any of these options" or "that is a best fit" or "I could try to explain myself in my profile" - so I don't think the "Meh, just deal with it" is an appropriate response.

Like, absolutely - it's not exhaustive cos there's so much under the gender non conforming and different sexualities - but when there's cis guys who assume trans = trans woman, and non-binary = vagina owner -- there's something somewhat lost.

[wo****]

6 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

So, like. I get what you were implying which was that... with so many variations that there's inevitably going to be gaps. 

Though, that wasn't really even on topic with the thread. But hey ho.

What you were replying to from me is that the off-the-shelf dating package, which this site uses, permits 5 options - they're customisable so some sites use them differently.  But they're very limiting.  I mean, it's up from the three that used to be common 20 years ago (man, woman, couple) but - for example this site has a "trans" category which most users assume is then trans women - there is nowhere for trans men to file.  This has been a huge complaint in the past.  

Now, as a cis het white guy - I reckon there's never been a website where we've had to define ourselves from dropdowns and gone "I'm not happy with any of these options" or "that is a best fit" or "I could try to explain myself in my profile" - so I don't think the "Meh, just deal with it" is an appropriate response.

Like, absolutely - it's not exhaustive cos there's so much under the gender non conforming and different sexualities - but when there's cis guys who assume trans = trans woman, and non-binary = vagina owner -- there's something somewhat lost.

Thanks for the reply. I have no quarrel with anything that you say here. It’s true I have never been like “none of these options fit me”. What is also true is that when filling out these types of menu’s when they have nothing to do with relationships, one’s that apply to the general public at large, even with one’s that have 15 or so options I am still left with “other” as the most accurate item to select for my child. The longer the list of options, the more problematic I see the list he doesn’t have a place to fit. Because these options don’t relate to anything he has any choice in or control over. So, it could be argued that I (on his behalf in a sense) am “un-human-ed” or whatever expression was previously used on forms that are much more common and standard than the ones here. I did become annoyed once, it was when I was verbally answering the person asking. She read the options, and before I even had a chance to respond, she answered for me, saying “so..white” aloud and marking the form despite it being plainly obvious by looking at my family that it most certainly wasn’t the most accurate of the available choices. I could never be certain as to what motivated her to make that selection over the others. It didn’t really matter to me but a person who controls and fills out those forms about people making such an incorrect choice while looking at a child and both his parents, one of whom can never be mistaken as white, was very surprising.
And all that, very pertinent information, is but one example of why it’s wrong to make assumptions about individuals because of groupings they happen to fit in.