Monday, January 29, 2024

Hypothetical - 1st Woman POTUS.


Lets just say, hypothetically, Trump ends up with so many legal issues he has to pull out, or gets sick, expires, whatever, so the GOP flips and nominates Nikki Haley (not likely, but this is just a discussion) and at the last moment Biden gets sick, or worse, or pulls out...will the Dems go with the VP?

If so, that would mean Kamala Harris versus Nikki Haley. It would mean, for the first time ever in the history of the USA, either way, we would have a female POTUS. Good, bad, right, wrong, good candidates, or not, whether you or I like either of them or not, if it was "Fem v Fem" on the ballots, either way, one of them would win and we'd have the 1st Woman President. Which also means we'd have the 1st Male...First Lady? First Gentleman? 1st "White House Male House Bitch Dude"? 1st Man of the Woman of the White House? 

It would be interesting on so many levels. Obviously there are quite a few people in 'Murica, that do not want a woman at the helm. More so, there are quite a few people, mostly on the right, that do not want, would especially not want, a woman of foreign origin, heritage, or ethnicity at the helm. As both Nikki and Kamala are of at least partial Indian ethnicity, mixed with African, and not sure what else, what would those "Bubbas" do? Vote? Not vote? Write in someone else? And a lot of Dems are not really "fan boys-girls" of Kamala so the enthusiasm level and turnout for her might not be what some would hope or expect. Not sure. I know one thing for sure...I would not vote for either of them. However, it is interesting to ponder and would throw some excitement into what is otherwise a rather boring repeat political contest between two geriatric old dudes, wherein we already did this, roughly 3 years ago.   :) 

Thursday, January 4, 2024

Submissive "Suffering"...


    I can think of no other edifice constructed by man as altruistic as a lighthouse. 
They were built only to serve. ~ George Bernard Shaw


Are submissives an edifice? No, not really, not at all. They are living breathing beings with a soul, aspirations, feelings and emotions, not just a cold stonelike building. Yet still, they "serve" others, and with a certain level of benevolence and altruism right? Yes, yes indeed. 

Not everyone has the desire to serve only themselves, their own wants and desires, that "me/me/me" mentality. Not everyone has the urge to focus their lives on materialistic possessions, greed, or tangible items. For many people, the main thing that matters in life is other human beings. For some, obviously, that could be a parent with child, or caring for family, relatives, or the impoverished, the downtrodden, those without a voice. For some, it might be caring for animals and the planet, or a combination of some or all of the above. 

For some, more akin to a hedonistic lifestyle, it's the happiness and well-being of their spouse, their lover, husband, wife, and that would be applicable to those that are straight, gay, bi, tri, trans, whatever. 

It could mean anything from making sure the eggs and hash-browns they make for breakfast for their "other" are perfectly cooked, to wiping away a tear if that person had a bad day, to a massage, cuddles, hugs, big huge bear hugs, to the more intimate aspects, providing pleasure, oral sex, tongue, more tongue, followed up by a side order of...even more tongue. This might include "suffering" from corporal punishment, being teased and denied, in chastity, blue balls, verbal humiliation, being ordered to engage in what some, perhaps most, would consider degrading acts, whatever it is...it's all done to make their "other" happy, which thereby transfers to their own pleasure and happiness as...they desire to serve. Not sure if this is based on nature or nurture, or a combination of both. I doubt this has ever been appropriately studied, and I'm not sure it could be figured out even if it was, but either way, some people are just wired to serve others.  

 Compersion refers to a form of joy, in the joy of others. 

A lot of people conflate "submissive" with being a "simp". For me, they are not at all the same. A simp is a guy who does anything for a woman, any woman, just to seek her attention and perhaps affection. This is no good. It's not good as...she is not necessarily worthy of that attention. Just being woman, just having a hole between your legs, does not automatically mean being deserving...of anything. Vaginas are ubiquitous. Roughly 50% of Earths population are women, meaning a vagina owner, they are not rare. They are everywhere. 

Don't be a simp guys, ever, period. No woman deserves that treatment...at all. You want the woman that you are "submissive" to, to be appreciative of your efforts and devotion. The reciprocal aspect of this, is her not taking your "suffering" for granted. She knows the how and why you are offering it, why you are doing it, it's a heartwarming gesture and for a dominant woman, a sexual thrill, as opposed to just some random woman taking whatever you offer out of a sense of entitlement and then ignoring you for the rest of her life, forgetting you even exist or what it is you did on her behalf. Huge difference. One is not the same as the other. One is uplifting for you, for the sub, as it elevates your sense of worth and value in making her life better, where it is acknowledged and appreciated, adored, the other is the opposite, it devalues you, reduces you to a "lesser" status, taken for granted, and is not understood nor validates your own worth...as a submissive, as man, or as a human being. You want to "suffer" for a woman? Good, good for you. Just make sure she is worthy of that gift.  :) 

A Good Submissive Man is Not Hard to Find...They Just Need Training.
~ Vanessa Chaland