Welcome to Gaia! ::

When I was younger, so much younger than today, not only did I never need any-body's help (in any way), but I had a 'type'.
Precisely what this type was, my febrile adolescent mind insisted, could change- twas' only logical that it should do so. But yes, of course, I had a preference. Surely, chance could have no part in my affairs of the heart.
And so, through African queens, regal and tall, Teutonic Valkyries and Spanish lasses of fiery character, through petite Asian prep-school boys and vast bearded mountains-of-men, through nerd-girls and popular ladies, I remained entirely convinced.

In these latterly times I am less sure.

I honestly don't think what appeals to me about a person can be generalized, beyond a generic willingness to indulge my tastes, which anyone I'm involved with would have irregardless. But since this doesn't answer the question, a more profitable line of inquiry.
I like paradoxes.

I like a filthy mind wrapped in a veil of innocence. I like reticence, modesty and reluctance camouflaging a lust that would do credit to an orgiast's dreams. I like imperfect beauty. I want these things.

I want someone who understands me, but not because they are a failed version of myself- as some few of my partners have been. I want someone to surpass my knowledge in one area and bow to it in the next. I want a partner, a true partner, whom I understand and who understands me, with a full will and a ready mind.

If I have an 'ideal sub', they fit the above. In this regard, I count myself presently lucky.

I like the sweet ones who want to be bad-a**, but don't have the confidence yet. I like giving them that confidence, but still keeping them on a leash (literally, if need be). Physical appearance doesn't matter so much, though I do have a usual 'type'. Attitude means so much more, and what I really find attractive is a bright smile and an even brighter blush twisted . A dirty mind wrapped in a veil of innocence...is really the most perfect description ever! Thank you, Joseph Severn!

And, of course, I have a weakness for wrists that look good wrapped in silk and in leather...but that's my shallow side speaking.

I like the ones with innocent eyes, and maybe a little shyness. I can be a bit of a sadist, but I enjoy more loving dom/sub relationships that come from sharing so much and opening up to eachother. We keep so many secrets from eachother and ourselves in our daily lives, that the difference that happens when the right Dom/sub come together, and you feel free to express that part of yourself fully, without pretensions, is very special.

But I do like alot of heavier play, so my ideal sub is also into quite constrictive bondage, knife play, has a masochistic streak and enjoys a bit of exhibitionism. And appreciates a slow well crafted scene that's gratifying for all of the senses.

I suppose I'm nastier to the male subs I've dealt with. I like to cuddle and stroke and tease and spoil female subs alot more. To take care of them and protect them. Though there have been male subs I've felt this way about.

A little sassy is good, but I don't like subs who break the rules to get punished. That's not how it works for me. I want to master and control my sub not train them, and both pain and pleasure are part of that. I don't mean no training at all (there are certain things I except to be done, and done exactly right), but rather I want to explore them- their reactions, their bodies, their minds, their passions, and use them against them, in an experience that can be painful and humiliating, but is ultimately liberating for both of us. To me, the sub breaking the rules to get punished is either going to end up in a relationship where the dom and sub aren't balanced and are being dishonest to eachother and their nature, or it's roleplay, and not really bdsm. That's fine too, and roleplaying being a slave to explore some part of yourself is still something valid and good, but it's not what I'm after. This is part of my life, not a bedroom game.

The sub's I've loved the most have been the one's who, the first time we met, trembled when I touched their cheek, and were torn between looking into my eyes, blatant with their desire, and looking away to hide the uncertainty caused by the heat of longing and the sharp pang of fear from a complete stranger.

I find this statement so secure and so logically pronounced that I find it heart pounding to read.

The above struck me in a very interesting way. If I want to, I can sound like that. I would enjoy being able to present myself as the above quoted person did with as little apparent effort as they have shown. Unfortunatly I am more likely to say WOOT or WTF then veil or reticence. Though I would like to note that irregardless isn't a REAL word.

"Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so."