Yeah, that makes sense. Do you mind me asking what kind of church you went to? Was it nondenominational or did it have a denomination?

Not hating on your church or anything, but isn’t his death the whole point? Like if he didn’t die in that manner and then theoretically come back, he’d just be some guy. There’d be no need for the religion. I feel like his death makes the whole thing come full circle. It’s not just about being good, it’s about then being willing to sacrifice for the good of everyone.

Yea, that’s basically my point. I don’t know why the desire is to be an attractive woman. Why not wish to be attractive man? Attractive men get plenty of action. What is it about being a woman specifically? I’m not saying they’re trans, I just think it’s worth some self reflection.

Are you gay? Your comment lower in this thread seem to indicate you are attracted to women. An attractive woman might be able to fuck a lot of men, but if you’re not gay I don’t know why you’d deem that outcome as desirable.

Extremely sorry to hear you’re having a tough time. I’m not a guy, so I cannot speak from direct experience, but just judging from my male friends it seems like the “find a social hobby” advice really works. I know you didn’t ask for advice, but I really don’t have much else to offer other than my sympathy. I hope things get better for you (and everyone tbh).

I know this generally falls under the personal responsibility part, but I think it’s also important to point out separately that not only do you have to do this, but you have to KNOW you need to do this. How many people are going to be exposed to this information and then remember it? I try to care and minimize my impact, but I legitimately forget who I’m “supposed” to be boycotting unless it’s a big thing. I don’t shop at target now, but should I have stopped sooner? Starbucks and McDs, but am I also not supposed to eat at chipotle? I legitimately do not remember. Heck, I don’t even remember why I’m boycotting some places. I just assume if it’s convenient and cheap I should not go.

It is such a clear sign of differences in socialization, because you will never find a more supportive group than a bunch of drunk female friends (in my experience). Really sad to see the lack of men supporting men, but hopefully it’s getting better as the years go on.

That potentially just gives GameStop more money and unnecessarily adds tension to a holiday where a parent is just trying to make their kid happy. Fuck GameStop and all, but this parent was put in a bad position on purpose by someone who knew better and who ostensibly was being paid to help people like them out (post is fake obviously though). It’s not their fault GameStop sucks, and it’s not the kids fault either.

Really depends on your definition, but by most online consensus and generally by most definitions I’ve seen, a DM can indeed metagame. If you personally don’t feel that way, that’s fine, but a DM is considered a role player in my experience so the following definition holds: The act of a roleplayer making use of knowledge that they have learned out of character (and which their character does not know) while they are in character

If I have a random shopkeep tail the rogue of the party through the shop, even if their character does not give off rogue vibes, I’m being metagamey. I know they’re going to try something so I use that to change the behavior of the shopkeeper. To me and to most other people according to a quick search, that’s metagamey. You can feel differently, but I believe that puts you in the minority.

Yea, like I said, every table is different. I’m sure some people would love that and think it’s great. Others might not. Diversity in the space is really good for the hobby in my experience.

Totally understandable take. Definitely have had townspeople giving differing accounts of the beast they encountered in the woods so players aren’t sure if it’s a vampire or a ghost or werebeast etc so they’re on their toes and keeping an eye out for anything (this is an oversimplification but you get the point).

I would never ask a player if they are averting their eyes unless I had reason to believe they would (like I said above maybe they were already warned). If they touch a poisoned object I’m not asking if their hand is gloved or if they’re using a cloth. If they are doing something out of the ordinary I expect them to say as much unless it’s already established that their character always wears gloves or something.

Setting the tone is important and also a good time to give them some information on the monster. If it can shoot spikes I might refer to the spikes as like the quills of a porcupine or something to try to telegraph that if it’s bright enough and their skills are high enough to normally make that connection. If they misconstrue tone setting for actual information I generally do not correct them unless I think their PC would know better in which case I will sometimes outright correct them or have them roll for additional clarification. It’s hard to know what their PC would actually be able to gather if they were a real person, so I try not to penalize them for what may at some point just be my failure to describe what they see as a DM.

Different play/DM styles are good though. Lets everyone find a table that’s right for them.

Every table is different but I don’t think this would fly at my table. It’s a little metagamey to ask unless you have reason to believe they would, so if they were told in character to look away but maybe the players themselves forgot where it’s not something the PCs would forget. It feels a little adversarial. Combat is often rough to begin with and imposing disadvantage for no reason other than it punishes them for taking cues from the DM seems like it’s stretching it unnecessarily. But every table really is different and it may have been super fun for everyone, I don’t know.

Agreed. Peace and love.

Yes, I agree that in healthy interactions subs should have the power and most doms are pretty flexible.

As I mentioned above, breath play is dangerous and imho too common considering how few people have any idea what they’re doing.

I also agree regarding 50 shades. That dynamic is unhealthy and no one should have to experience that.

What I can say after experiencing both sides of casual and less casual encounters is that if I meet someone in a non kink bar and the extent of her kink is she wants me to verbally degrade her, I’m unfortunately unlikely to get a list of things she wants to be called. I can sit her down and have a conversation about it, but that’s more likely to see her disinterested in speaking openly about it than asking something about it during the normal flow of the encounter. “Tell me how naughty you are” or whatever is more likely to illicit things she is comfortable being called than actually sitting her down to talk about it. In my experience, outside of the kink community, I’ve not seen people willing to have open and honest discussions about their kinks. In long term relationships it’s different, but if I’m taking someone home and we’re not expecting to be together for an extended period of time, I have not personally found it fruitful to attempt to invoke a paradigm shift regarding shame and power as it relates to sexuality. Maybe that’s a me issue, but I’m not sure that it can be done that fast and I’m attempting to work within that framework. I would never physically restrain someone or engage in more serious play on a one off basis without having a serious discussion about it, but I don’t think most people engaging in casual encounters go that far either.

I’m trying to meet society where it’s at, and I’m not sure what the realistic alternative is. Maybe I’m too pessimistic, but imho casual subs will continue to try to find people who will engage with them the way they desire and it will continue to put them at risk until either they or casual doms get more serious about boundaries and consent. I do not see kink community norms making it to a more casual setting any time soon, so in the meantime I can only suggest stop gap measures. I’m not seeing a lot of what I would consider realistic advice for people who find themselves in that situation. I know plenty of het women who would prefer a few rougher than expected encounters than having to sit down and verbalize their sexual desires. I can tell them to get over that, or I can suggest that people doing the harm (engaging in rough sex without consent is harm regardless of if you THINK they want it or not) take responsibility as well. Ideally we see movement on both ends, but imho the het women are not actually doing harm. They are putting themselves in situations they know have the potential to be harmful, but they aren’t DOING the harm. It their partners who are deciding the boundaries. I don’t think they are purposefully harming people, but that’s the outcome.

I’m really not sure that we’re in disagreement here. I think anyone initiating is great. I suggested ways for doms to do it that are more consistent with casual interaction than in kink communities, since there seems to be a consensus that subs in the casual scene don’t like it to be so explicit.

I’m not saying subs can’t or shouldn’t. I’m just saying that seeing as subs in more casual settings seem turned off by explicit discussion of boundaries, that it seems like a hard sell to then expect a cultural shift of them embracing being the ones to begin the conversation. If you can start that shift, amazing, but I don’t see a huge movement in that regard currently. I think it’d be ill advised for me to just tell newbie/casual doms “don’t worry have your sub be responsible for bringing up their boundaries”. I would err on the side of caution and I was just providing a suggestion for how to do that in a casual setting without ruining the mood. As I’ve said before, anyone can bring it up and everyone should bring it up.

I think sex positive people generally appreciate when their partner is upfront and clear about their boundaries. I just don’t think it’s as common for subs to be the ones to start that discussion. Even your wording regarding it taking a huge burden off your dom implies that there was some pressure on the dom to ask for it. In my experience, the doms are the ones that start that discussion. My experience seems to align with other people’s experience when we discuss it, but I’m definitely not saying that’s always the case.

Yessss. The orgasm gap in general is so real and guys (not talking about OP specifically but just in general) are all like “this makes pp feel good so why you no cum yet?” Absolute zero fucks given about their female partners. Some women enjoy penetration and can cum from that alone, but I’ve had female partners that have lots of toys but no dildos because “why even bother” and that’s so valid. Solo female masturbation is 9/10 in my experience clitoral, so idk why guys struggle to understand that in and out is only going to do so much for most women.

But you know how these wanton harlots are, enjoying things outside of missionary with their husband for the sole purpose of procreation. Disgusting! Brides of satan the lot of them.

Yeah, I agree with your personal experience regarding who is generally turned off by it, but I think that’s why it needs to be a masc/Dom lead thing. Subs are too turned off by it conceptually and don’t want to take the lead. I think the big issue is how it’s incorporated into foreplay. Unfortunately, being sexy and dom about consent is not second nature to everyone, but it can definitely be done.

“Do you want me to X” or “wouldn’t you like that?” can be sprinkled throughout foreplay. “Tell me when to stop” or walking someone through an RP scenario where you respect their no and then they have to enthusiastically express consent to proceed. Absolute basic outline below devoid of all sexuality and not actually phrasing I would use: “Tell me to stop” “I don’t want you to” “Tell me anyway”

Option A “Ok. Stop” You stop and then have some sexy banter and tell them they need to ask you to continue. You’ve now demonstrated that you will respect their no even if you know it’s just play and you have their enthusiastic consent to proceed. If they don’t want to proceed either they didn’t actually like what was happening or you can try to ask them what they want instead and now they’re in charge.

OR “No I like this too much” You can proceed and potentially ask sexy follow ups to understand what specifically they like. “Oh you like how I X or do you like how I Y better?”

The issue is there’s a fine line between sexy and cringe. Knowing how to read a situation will definitely help, but the concept of using consent to build suspense is not new. There’s a whole genre of bodice rippers where the woman is the one that finally gives in and lets the man take her because he insists he won’t touch her until she begs for it. It obviously requires more restraint from the dom, and different techniques work on different people, but generally a way can be found to put consent in the hands of a sub without letting them feel like the power dynamic has been lost. It really is an art form though and not everyone can be a great artist, but we can all try our best.

Yes, those are exactly the things that should be happening.

I think the aversion to it is often that it’s not incorporated into the foreplay itself. For more serious things it should be completely separate so that there’s no question what is part of the the play and not, but imho for casual sex there’s less of a need to have a sit down discussion about it. I’m a woman though, so I get that it’s easier for me to say than for a man to say. It sucks because a lot of that onus is put on the person coded as masc/dom in more casual settings, but that’s just the reality of it. I think if more masc/dom coded people incorporated it into their casual sex it’d be less taboo much faster. I don’t think femme/sub coded people are going to be able to push it and still feel like they’re inhabiting the space they want to, so I don’t know if we’ll see a lot of cultural movement unless heterosexual men start to champion this idea of incorporating consent into foreplay.

I’m sure you have sex real good etc etc, but honestly, a lot of heterosexual men do not have sex real good. Your conception of “loving sex” is fine and all, but often penetration alone is not pleasurable enough for women, especially if their partner is inexperienced or if neither party is familiar enough with the woman’s anatomy to find an angle that’s more stimulating. I’m not saying rough sex is the answer, but a lot of women think “boring sex” is bad because their partner is doing the technical aspects of what you’re saying “long, slow strokes” but neither party is able to make that as pleasurable for the woman involved. Male anatomy (in general) can enjoy a wider variety of stimulation than female anatomy and slowing things down can be really great for both parties, but in my experience requires more work for the female party to enjoy it to the same extent. Again, just my experience, but long and slow can easily turn into a version of starfishing with an inexperienced partner.