“What’s In It For Me?”

That’s not exactly how he phrased the question, but I did get the following from an avowed “vanilla” listener to the Ropecast:

The one thing that still stumps me is the head space. My beloved wants me to tie her up and fuck her – Ok I’m good with that because I love her and at least intellectually I understand it. Hell I even like tying her up – but I have no emotional need to tie her up in the same way she has an emotional need to be tied up and fucked.

To put it another way, I like rope (a lot) and I like to tie her up but if I never tied her up again there would be no empty hole in my life. But – if she didn’t get tied up ever again she would miss something important – something I don’t understand on an emotional level.

I dunno – maybe it’s an unanswerable question – you get it or you don’t.

That is a good question – but first I have to give HUGE props to my vanilla friend here for being, as Dan Savage puts it, G-G-G (Good, Giving, Game). He listened to his wife’s needs (and notice he accepted them as needs, not just wants) and then did his best to meet them. Seems like he’s done so rather successfully, too. You ROCK, dude.

But what’s in it for him? He doesn’t say it that way, because he’s not the selfish bastard that I am, but it’s a valid question. Sure, you could do the whole “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” thing and she could deliver his fantasy of getting a blowjob while watching Glee and eating pancakes* but he wants to meet her at least part of the way in that experience of tying her up.

It’s an immensely valid question, and it reminds me of Cunning Minx‘s tale of how she learned to like giving head. Her version of the tale is immensely entertaining, but to paraphrase: she didn’t, for a very long time. And as a result was not very good at it. Then a lucky and wise man asked her if she could find some aspect of it that she did like.

And she did. It wasn’t the physical part, or the taste, or being on her knees. I won’t spoil the tale by letting you know; you can ask her yourself (oh, I’m such an instigator!). But she did find something, and I think that’s the answer for my erstwhile vanilla friend.

Take a look at the whole act of rope bondage. One of the reasons I’ve loved it for so long (and have been able to talk about it for WAY too long) is because of the many parts of it:

  • Naked flesh feels good in my hands.
  • Rope feels good in my hands.
  • It’s a puzzle: how do I tie her so I can do this? or that? Or even…wow!
  • It’s a performance: How can I make the act of tying more graceful (or forceful or domly or sexy or insert adjective here)
  • It’s a connection: hell with the knots and shit, her eyes are shining and it’s all because of ME.
  • It’s a dance: I’m listening to Massive Attack (or Boss Hoss or Britney Spears or whatever) and the ropes and her and me are just moving.
  • It’s a power exchange: I am in charge, and she is mine while she’s in the ropes. Hot.

You get the idea. There is probably some aspect of the rope bondage that you do like, my friend, and focus on that. Let that fill your mind during the act, and it becomes a shared experience.

Don’t be surprised, though, if you find that the parts that you like change, expand, or if it takes you both in a whole new direction. That is part of the fun.

*I’m speculating. But surely I can’t be the only one?

2 thoughts on ““What’s In It For Me?”

  • Gray. This was an excellent response. I enjoy rope for all those reasons and more. This is how I can enjoy rope with non-sexual partners and even more so when there is more.

    I think I can guess who has the pancake/glee/bj fantasy.

  • Depending on how this person likes to interact with his wife, the connectedness approach taught by Jimmy Tatu, what he calls Nawa-Do, might be useful. I found the purposeful, focused, and intense contact useful with or without rope. Plus, he is a great presenter. The class is perfect for couples.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.