Sex, Sex, Sex... It's All About the Sex

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Because sex is so much fun.

Well, sure. There's always that.

[Katmandu]

Right, OK. Thought I would just read this thread to see where it was going, but now I have to jump in.

Originally posted by ProjectEuropa
The difference as to when a partner serves me a drink (in one of her less feisty moods) as a submissive act, is the sexual connotation that I can take more and she would be willing to give more than a drink. However I tend to make the drinks because the tea I'm usually served up with is like dishwater and I know she really hasn't got the skill to improve because she hates making tea. I would imagine it would be similar for a BJ, if she really doesn't like it, would it be any good and would I then want it or would I want it just because I could make her do it?

Right! What happens when, a sub isn't "into it", and cannot bring the love and passion into the act they are performing? Do the Dom's care, and get off anyway, based on this control level? Or, do they get turned off whenever a sub is less than enthusiastic?

In reference to the beginning of this chat, a sub usually gets into the act of submission, whatever it is, in order to please and serve the Dom. Does that sub require more training (brainwashing) in order to be more in tune with the Master's wishes, in the case of attempting to do something they hate doing?

Originally posted by MsTerrry
I would feel content knowing that he was enjoying it. Servitude is what would please me because it would please my Master.

So, if a sub has issues with a Dom's (harmless) desires, does that "not a good sub make"?

[Ranai]

I am somewhat doubtful that people can be trained to enjoy things they previously disliked; not just felt neutral or nervous about, but actually disliked.

It happens in BDSM fiction all the time, but for the most part I believe it's wishful thinking.

Whether a submissive is willing to do a thing he/she dislikes, purely for the enjoyment of the dominant, is a question of limits, and needs to be discussed between the two as partners.

So, if a sub has issues with a Dom's (harmless) desires, does that "not a good sub make"?

No. Just a sub with limits. And who hasn't? Whether something is a limit that might be open to be 'pushed' at some point, or a hard limit, is for the submissive to say.

[ProjectEuropa]

Right! What happens when, a sub isn't "into it", and cannot bring the love and passion into the act they are performing? Do the Dom's care, and get off anyway, based on this control level? Or, do they get turned off whenever a sub is less than enthusiastic?

Well I can only speak for myself. If the sub is really not into something and is really not getting anything out of a task, I'm can't imagine being interested in the task myself. There has to be some obvious benefit in a task that the sub can identify to make a task worthwhile. I personally don't find any reward in making a sub do something simply because I can make a sub do something.

In reference to the beginning of this chat, a sub usually gets into the act of submission, whatever it is, in order to please and serve the Dom. Does that sub require more training (brainwashing) in order to be more in tune with the Master's wishes, in the case of attempting to do something they hate doing?

Brainwashing is strictly a No No with me. There is too much potential as it is to fuck with someones head. Reluctance accompanied by a curiousity is another matter. I think then it is legitimate to discuss and influence.

So, if a sub has issues with a Dom's (harmless) desires, does that "not a good sub make"?

Hmm What is harmless? One can say with some authority what is physically harmless but one can't say with any authority what is psychologically harmless, one would have to be able to look into someone's head for that.