Thursday, 23 June 2016


When I started writing the Beau blog many years ago I used the strapline "a hopeless romantic". Following a long discussion with a reader I changed it to "a hopeful romantic". I wonder if I am still a romantic or whether I am growing cynical as the years pass.

I am in the middle of a conversation at the moment with a submissive woman who described to me how she had become hopelessly infatuated with her top. Sadly it was unrequited as she (her top) had a separate romantic partner. However, they remained good friends and play partners. She wondered how often it was the case that bottoms developed such strong feelings for their top.

I wrote back with the following thoughts,
Bottoming, submitting, giving yourself for another's use is a very intimate activity. It involves huge levels of trust. Where one's trust is respected and paid back so that you feel safe and cared for as well as used then one surely cannot help a bond forming. This would be magnified hugely if it became regular play. How could one not become close to one's top? I wonder how one could not feel strong emotions for them following such play. Perhaps the stronger the play - the stronger the emotion. And when aftercare is given then this must feel very loving.

So perhaps your unrequited crush is more common than we realise!
She wrote back agreeing with what I had said but still felt that a romantic attachment was something different. She is happy to share her top's body but wants her heart all to herself.

I've been thinking this through for over a week now - she must think I have forgotten her. I suppose part of me is reflecting on the nature of this romantic love, that is desperate for the heart of another in a way that is perhaps even stronger than the bond formed by total submission.

So help me out romantics. How do I respond to her?

Thursday, 16 June 2016

ethical sluttishness

In the previous post I discussed the redefining of sluttishness. The word "slut", typically used to describe women, is most often used as a negative description. Whereas calling a man a "stud" can be seen as a positive description. What is the difference? Each is someone who may have a number of sexual partners. Why is that seen as something to celebrate in a man but something to denigrate in a woman?

A friend some time ago gave a copy of The Ethical Slut to Inès though I am not sure if she has read it all. I am afraid I have only browsed it quickly. Wikipedia has an article about it here in which it summarises the theme of the book like this,
The authors define the term slut as "a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you." The term is reclaimed from its usual use as a pejorative and as a simple label for a promiscuous person. Instead, it is used to signify a person who is accepting of their enjoyment of sex and the pleasure of physical intimacy with others, and chooses to engage and accept these in an ethical and open way—rather than as cheating.
The Ethical Slut discusses how to live an active life with multiple concurrent sexual relationships in a fair and honest way. 
Is this not a positive and ethical approach to having multiple partners? Can it be done? Can I be a slut and still be a moral person?

Any more sluts out there?

Thursday, 9 June 2016

redefining sluttishness

I wrote some years ago about "on being a slut" here.

I just came across a great article about Helen Mirren's views here.

(To digress, I once met Helen Mirren in a France Telecom office in Provence but that is another story!)

Helen is reported as having praised "'shameless women' who are redefining beauty, citing Pussy Riot and Kim Kardashian as role models who have rejected labels such as slut..."

She goes on to say, "I love shameless women. Shameless and proud!"
"They all raise their middle fingers to this epithet of ‘slut’. They wear what they want to wear, behave as they want to behave.’"

I know there are many as part of their bdsm activity may delight in being a slut with the person who dominates them - whilst appearing perhaps almost demur to the real world. There are perhaps others who delight in their sluttishness whatever the context.

I wonder about my readers. Do some express their slutishness just with the one close to them? Is it only for private or also in public? And what about Doms. Do you like your subs to express their sluttishness in public or do you want it kept just for yourself?

Are you a slut and proud of it? Or - do you have one for your pleasure and to show off?

Thursday, 2 June 2016


On my post about excitement Innerdeamons commented (I paraphrase slightly)

...i realised that this is what i wanted; the excitement would fade and desire and want would slowly start to consume me; i feel for me personally that the desire is more powerful than excitement and that in its own way is exciting.

It got me thinking about desire and bdsm. It also got me thinking about the power of desire and whether it was more consuming than excitement. I think it is difficult to compare the two. As Innerdeamons implied, the power of desire itself can be exciting. Perhaps desire is just a very powerful kind of excitement.

I know too that bdsm causes desire in me as well as giving me excitment. I want Inès. Her submission causes desire. Exerting my power over her causes desire.

So of course - that is exciting!

Does bdsm cause desire in you too?