Forum: Story Ideas

Cheat?

No, not cheat, it's absolutely not what I intended either. Inside their family it's all out in the open, a fully communicated and consensual plural partnership. It's just that, probably mostly for the facade of normalcy, there's the nominal First Wife, she is also likely The true leader of the household with the other wife (or two) subordinate to her, fully or partially, while the husband a whole steep step lower under them all.

It's just that for any outsider, initially the reader including, only the nominal couple of Wife and husband are acknowledged and public affection displayed. The other woman (or women) are cohabiting with them, but on what terms is publicly unknown. In reality husband is servicing them under instruction from Wife or they own whims as far their autonomy is allowed by the Matriarch, possibly an almost unimportant fact of life duly noted by our lowly servant of his Queen.

From there the complication proposed, that ignorant guest(s) express interest in (one of) the "excess" seemingly unaffiliated woman, but get nothing, because, the full situation now demonstrated to the reader, not necessarily to the refuted guest.

Yeah, it's probably still something entirely different you intended, it's just I wanted to give something to the poor guy making him actually rich in a slightly unexpected way. But yeah, it's just a twisted reinterpretation, me having fun.

Well, apparently I'm hopelessly failing in expressing the angle I offered as as little twisted interpretation. I believe it was very small addition, even if deliberately unexpected, but not changing the basic psychology of the setting in any major way.

Anyhow, sorry for interfering, and no, it's exceedingly unlikely I might write something along those lines anytime soon, even if it could be possibly interesting excercise to explore mindset so alien for me personally.

I'm currently in process of writing a semi-FDOM story set in medieval times that will be complete no time soon. I'm curious how much guys will hate it.

Not my thing, but I don't hate it.

I don't think any real FLR relationships involve incest - and he can certainly be the father, not have any actual say in the finances, etc without going down on his daughters/having a harem.

Many women handle the finances. I bet it's 50/50 in relationships. The whole idea of the men doing the domestic work in an FLR (while the women have their hands down their pants while watching Great British Bake Off) requires a semi-stretch into fantasy since in almost every cultural the women do all that work (unless your story is about seahorses)

In your story the women have dicks and the men have boobs

Is the story the shock factor when a traditional family visits and sees the roles reversed?

And no I'm not trolling. I'm just trying to be one of the many voices here trying to help you decide on what direction you want to go with the story.

I get it. You guys are trying to troll me. "You want a FLR? Okay, how about (The exact opposite of that)?

Not really.

The original suggestion involved a Alpha Female who built a harem of women (for herself) who were subservient to her, but because she (and they) were all bisexual, she decided to acquire a boy-toy, whom she marries. He's her sub, possible he's also a sub to every female in the harem (they're all switches, in addition to being bi?).
Actually, if he's a high-powered financier it makes a weird kind of sense... he could afford to pay for their life, plus guys that have jobs that require being dom-like are (if they have any sub tendencies at all) much more likely to get into extreme sub play so a over-achiever would have being the sub of a group of women as a fairly optimal situation.

Or, you could just have a traditional Italian household. The man is the representitive outside the family, but inside the home the woman is the boss. (Of course, outside the home, the man has his mistress and his whores, but that's kinda expected.)

I made the original suggestion and I assure you that was absolutely not it.

I obviously meant the original suggestion in response to your suggestion.

But really, maybe what you're seeing is that most people would prefer a story other than exactly what you prefer?

...and the issue is perceptions aren't reality.

It's equally valid that the harem suggestion was merely an extension of the suggestion (not to subvert it, but to boost the number of readers it would appeal to, presumably including the one who suggested it) while maintaining the male's position in the relationship (but perhaps explaining why he'd tolerate it).

And one person correcting you after being repeatedly falsely accused of trolling.

See, there are always different reads on identical events.

what I see is one request for a harem story to subvert the intentions of the post.

One person describing her own medieval story.

And one person trolling me even after I asked him three times to stop

Seriously? Sorry for trying to be helpful in getting your thoughts going. I'll stop.

It's equally valid that the harem suggestion was merely an extension of the suggestion (not to subvert it, but to boost the number of readers it would appeal to, presumably including the one who suggested it) while maintaining the male's position in the relationship (but perhaps explaining why he'd tolerate it).

Indeed, above is the correct reading of my ramblings intentions as far there's any. Obviously I failed to be clear enough.

And of course there's absolutely no insistance the story should contain any such elements. I only followed up with repeated attempt to explain myself because of feel I was grossly misunderstood due to strong preconceptions triggered on certain words without real comprehension. With I still think may be the case, but nevertheless it was made perfectly clear any and all such elements are unwelcome so the point was rendered moot.

what I see is one request for a harem story to subvert the intentions of the post.

One person describing her own medieval story.

And one person trolling me even after I asked him three times to stop.

This is ideas forum, isn't it? By publishing anything here, I would expect people to answer with their random associations my post sparked, possibly seemingly inconsequential comments, even objections directly or indirectly pointing out why the premise would fail.

Most of all would likely be absolutely alien to the original vision just out of shear rule of randomness as there's necessarily infinitely more divergent than aligning viewpoints exist or can be constructed. And while it may not be the optimal process, it's possible to carve out understanding of what the original vision possibly entails even by just shooting down divergent ideas in a trial and error process. Just no need to get hysterical over it.

(If I wanted to troll I could have come with a claim that all relationships imaginable are in fact "female led" because they ultimately control all the pussy and thus the critical consent to how the relationship would look like, whatever it is. And yes, even when there's no female directly involved, as moms, sisters and abusive classmates form our character.)

Indeed, above is the correct reading of my ramblings intentions as far there's any. Obviously I failed to be clear enough.

It's not that you failed to be clear enough.

Personally, I thought it very clear from the original post that a harem is very explicitly not something the original poster would want.

Even if that would drive broader appeal, it's driving the thread away from what the OP wanted. I think it's asking too much to think the OP would not be upset over that.

I think it's asking too much to think the OP would not be upset over that.

That's reasonable. Only delusional individuals believe it's possible to control what one feels (outside of fiction involving mind control, of course). However, and this is the important padt, what you feel shouldn't control what your actions are. Making accusations of bad intent on those who either are trying to help flesh out a idea in a way that would interest them (while remaining true to the explicitly stated framework, if not the implied) or on those who merely try to point out the possible misread of that intent... Not cool.

Eddie has his own, very limited appeal, set of preferences. Fine. But if he's posting "story ideas" and expects any response, it's almost by definition gonna result in people with preferences that don't perfectly align with his putting some spin on the idea that - while perfectly fitting what snippet was posted - will shift the story more to something that would interest them. And bitching about that is the problem, unless he specifically states he isn't interested in feedback other than fawning agreement.

those who either are trying to help flesh out a idea in a way that would interest them (while remaining true to the explicitly stated framework, if not the implied)

That was my point, the harem suggestions are absolutely not remaining true to the explicitly stated framework.

or on those who merely try to point out the possible misread of that intent

I don't consider the harem thing a reasonable "misread" of the OP.

Also, trying to keep going by justifying the misread after the first time the OP pointed out it was a misread in my opinion negates any notion of a good faith "misread".

No, the OP thinking the harem extension was maliciously intended was a misread of the intent of the suggestion.
OP explicitly stated a relationship in which the female was the domme. She has total control at home. Male is perfect sub. That's all.
So a suggestion was made - maybe she's a Alpha type, and has a harem of bisexual switch women, and he's a sub to all of them, but his 'reward' (and thus motivation for accepting the relationship as stated) is as much sex as he can handle. Which doesn't mean the woman is any less in control (well, any less than is the case in any Dom/sub relationship) or that the guy is any less a sub. So it fits the letter if not the spirit of the OP suggestion.
The OP is who made the misread, not those who replied.

OP explicitly stated a relationship in which the female was the domme. She has total control at home. Male is perfect sub. That's all.

No, that's not all. It was quite explicitly in my opinion, a traditional monogamous relationship with gender roles reversed so the woman is in charge.

It may have been the spirit of the suggestion, but not the letter.

It may have been the spirit of the suggestion, but not the letter.

To quote from the OP:

I often read Cuckolding stories that essentially make the woman sort of this sex-addict who wants to get freaky while hubby watches.

What I PREFER is one that is reflective of most FLR households. The woman is in charge of the house; finances, etc.

The man sets the table, does the housework, he has a job etc but no equal say in how things are done including raising the kids.He is an adult but think "June Cleaver" role instead of Wards. She was supportive of her husband's decisions and never openly disagreed with him.

I do not think your reading of the OP is anywhere near reasonable.

What the OP wants is quite explicitly Leave It To Beaver with June's and Ward's roles in the family reversed.

Implicitly, yes.

Explicitly, nothing was excluded other than cuckolding or male dom (or even equality).
He later explicitly restricted things, but also started making accusations of ill intent rather than recognizing that neutral intent was possible.

Implicitly, yes.

No, explicitly.

Wrong. He did not say "only" or "just". He gave the wards explicitly as an example of what he implicitly wanted, but by stating 'as example' it doesn't restrict things to that example, merely that that example is one interpretation of what is wanted.

That's the difference.

Also, I find it ironic that someone who in his past postings claimed the only way to collaborate as writers is to take turns and roll with whatever the other had introduced into a story (rather than discuss in advance the type of content and general direction or at least the desired endpoint) getting this upset about someone suggesting something that wasn't explicitly verboten from the outset...

He gave the wards explicitly as an example of what he implicitly wanted, but by stating 'as example' it doesn't restrict things to that example

I would accept that if the suggestions being offered weren't exactly that example, but were of a kind with the example. But that isn't the case.

None of the harem suggestions remotely fit with that example. They go in a completely unrelated direction.

That the suggestions don't exactly match the example isn't a problem.
Look at group theory. The example (the wards) can fit in multiple groups. The natural choice for which group to use is the largest group that isn't specifically excluded. A femdom harem wasn't excluded, so long as the female wasn't"a sex fiend just wanting to cuckold her husband". If she instead is a openly bisexual Domme and the husband is willing to share her with other women only in a group relationship, that still fits since he's the sub.
Yes, LATER the OP explicitly rejected that. But not from the start.

That the suggestions don't exactly match the example isn't a problem.

The problem isn't that the suggestions don't exactly match the example, the problem is the suggestions don't remotely resemble the example.

The example could belong to many groups. The least restrictive group would be fair, hence the group of "F-Dom, M-sub, no other men, no cuckolding" group that it fits is the largest group not explicitly restricted by the OP in the OP. So yes, in the sense those suggestions were in that group just as the example was, and there was no other explicit restrictions, they were fine.

Also remember Eddie's history. He specifically asked for writing partners to do on-the-fly plotting with no restrictions as to content or endpoint envisioned for the story, so it's reasonable to expect him to b somewhat openminded rather than the emptyminded reactionary asshat that he's acted like recently.

The least restrictive group would be fair, hence the group of "F-Dom, M-sub, no other men, no cuckolding"

I disagree, the example does not fit in that group, even with the gender role reversal.

That's where you are going wrong the OP was not explicitly or implicitly asking for a dom/sub relationship, just traditional nuclear family with the gender roles reversed.

Not explicitly.

Not explicitly.

Not even implicitly. The only part that can be read as even implicitly involving dom/sub is the statement of what he doesn't want.

He talked about reading the various cuckold stories, etc which means he doesn't object to the content, plus he writes BDSM stories. So not a stretch to assume he'd not object...but beyond that, any woman like June Cleaver in today's world would be regarded as one of either a submissive or a textbook battered wife desperately trying to avoid provoking a beating. Since the second is a little darker than I think anyone really wants to write or think about, going D/s makes sense. Beyond that it was stated the man makes no decisions and has no input into those made, which is actually closer to a reverse-Gorean approach (as traditional D/s involves more input/feedback from the sub.

any woman like June Cleaver in today's world would be regarded as one of either a submissive or a textbook battered wife desperately trying to avoid provoking a beating.

That some people would make that claim doesn't make it a mainstream view.

The feminists think that of any woman who chooses to be a stay at home mother. That doesn't make them right.


As for cuckolding. The traditional cuckolding story is the wife has a boyfriend while denying sex to her husband without any dom/sub element.

Adding femdom and feminization and all that is a relatively recent development which the OP said he didn't want.

Beyond that it was stated the man makes no decisions and has no input into those made, which is actually closer to a reverse-Gorean approach (as traditional D/s involves more input/feedback from the sub.

Actually it's pretty close to a gender role reverse of traditional marriage from the 1950s and going back centuries even in the absence of any kind of abuse or anything the BDSM kink community would recognize as d/s.

To be a gender role revers of a Gorean approach, men would have to be property that could be bought and sold.

It's not extreme D/s, but it would still be in the spectrum.

And yes, traditional relationships looked at from todays standards had some pretty heavily implied societal expectations based D/s. Not necessarily sexual, but then D/s isn't about sex really either.
Still, in most cases, it was more appearance than reality. The wife wouldn't openly dispute the man in front of anyone, but she'd have her say and often her way (if she cared enough, usually by threatening to restrict the pussy supply).

And yes, traditional relationships looked at from todays standards had some pretty heavily implied societal expectations based D/s. Not necessarily sexual, but then D/s isn't about sex really either.

It would not be recognized by today's D/S kink subculture as such, and that's the yardstick I would measure it by.

if she cared enough, usually by threatening to restrict the pussy supply

And in the 1950s and earlier, a wife couldn't count on getting away with that.

Aside from the fact that the recognition of rape in the context of marriage and the rejection of the notion that marriage implies consent for sex was still a couple of decades away, frequent use of lack-o-nookie as a way of punishing the husband would have been considered grounds for a divorce.

frequent use of lack-o-nookie as a way of punishing the husband would have been considered grounds for a divorce.

Hence only to be used in cases where its important enough. The positive reinforcement approach of extra pussy for doing as she wanted also could be used.