Is tease and denial the right message to be giving out?

Mistress Lucy, despite what you may think by the tone of the posts in this thread, I think you are quite kind, considerate and warm-hearted and want to believe the best of people.
Practical application seems to be important to you, and you have a very clear idea about what chastity means.
I also believe that you take your responsibility as someones' keyholder very seriously and can be counted on to do exactly what you say you will - lock 'em up for a long time.

As a goddess, you must be thrilled with the respectful adoration you receive from your willing supplicants, who in turn will desire nothing more than to continue to serve your desires. And how happy they must be when they receive one of your carefully chosen and considered gifts!
When you find a male who is willing to provide the adoration you deserve, that is something to be treasured.
However, when one of the many who make appeals to you to send them a padlock fall by the wayside, they are merely self-selecting themselves as being unworthy of your attention and should be paid no further heed.

 

This is very admirable, using male chastity to achieve and maintain something greater and much more profound.

 

Ms. Lucy's investigation and interrogation appears to be over, hopefully with a better outcome than Ms. Amanda's.

Any more intelligent assertive women who can think outside the square, women who don't necessarily share everybody else's pre-conceived view of what the world is supposed to look like? Any more non-conformist women out there willing to run the gauntlet? Just say something mildly controversial, we'll take care of the rest.

 

Got to ask what did the bear do to warrant that abuse.

This is supposed to be a nice place and not a place where that kind of violence is celebrated.

Xx Wendy

 

I get a bit tired of all this to be honest (and the "bit"-part was quite understated)!
I tried to show that with some humour in the previous post - but there's a sad but true rule about never ever explaining a joke!
Beatles vs. Stones, cats vs. dogs, McDonalds vs. Burger King, the "Cola-wars", silly vs. crazy... and now tease vs. denial or Lucy vs. money... who cares?
There are quite a few (reasonable) rules about hot to live and interact with each other, but there's no law of nature about how to live a blissful life!
I think, Monthy Python once told it better than I ever could in "The Life of Brian":
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
Crowd: [in unison] Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
Crowd: [in unison] Yes, we are all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
Crowd: Shhh!

 

I don't think that's really the case at all, more like exposing the differences between online and IRL keyholding.
Some things cannot be done online, like meeting the need (of both parties?) for physical intimacy and contact for those who desire that aspect of chastity/orgasm denial/control.

Different strokes for different folks
or
No strokes for Mistress Lucys' folks!

 

Careful now, Frankie. You're being rather droll... You also appear to be using a touch of irony and you know for some people round here that won't do. That won't do at all...

I don't really buy Star Wars, personally, but I give a Stormtrooper salute to Miss Lucy for clearly being an "intelligent, assertive woman who can think outside the square"

Let's hope her recent treatment here doesn't put too many others off!

G.

 

Yeah, I should be careful, I keep forgetting that most of the world has absolutely no idea what 'irony' is. You can always find some in most good breakfast cereals with a plastic toy.

I'm disturbingly fascinated by the bear-caning video of Ms. Lucy's. I grow tense and find it difficult to watch. I'm not sure if I want to be the bear. As soon as I can find a cut-rate shrink I'll find out what it means.

What have we all learned?

 

You'll take care of the rest? Do you realise how patronising you sound?

 

I think I sound like a lot of things ... but 'patronising'? I would have though the complete opposite actually.

I knew irony would get me in trouble. I rest my case.

 

i don't think i cud ever be dominant i cant even tell my cat off when shes naughty. i hopes lots of Ladys comes in here and says things like Miss Lucy does but i still don't want to go down the mine.

 

So after following this thread, my thoughts on tease and denial are this..... Everyone had different ideas regarding chastity. For some people a long term lock up is exactly what they want. I prefer to do a long term lock up with tease and denial partly because we are older and to be frank, it doesn't stay as hard as it used to when we were younger. He has never had the sensitivity that he has now when he has not cum. The teasing play we do is because it is my way of letting him know I appreciate his being locked and I haven't forgotten he is locked.

As far as Mistress Lucy and others on this site go, to each their own. We have learned from our chastity experience from this and other sites that everyone does things differently and there is really not a right or wrong way to do something. I might offer that some of the subs Mistress Lucy is referring to may also have been chronic masturbators. They are looking for a dominant person to use tease and denial not realizing that being locked does not mean they will get teased.

I have learned to respect everyone's opinion and just because they are different from me does not mean they are wrong. As a relatively newbie to the site and to chastity, I have found it appears most people on this site are looking for ideas and exploring their relationships which is never a bad thing unless you have a closed mind.

 

A bit ironic coming from you...

 

Whoops, commented on wrong thread

 

Nothing??? How about hours of intimate service to your beautiful sexy wife?

 

Unless I missed something that's not the case. He's locked for Lucy. No intimate service. S'all good though, we're all a big happy cock lockin' crew now.

 

I think that's a difference of perception though. You see 'intimate' as referring to what happens physically to someone's body, and their genitals. It's perfectly possible - and likely in the case of Ms Lucy's subjects - that 'intimate' means something less genital but still involving their own physical experience, and something less about the act of sex and more about the mental state brought about by it's rejection, and suppression.

We're talking about chastity in it's truest sense here, a state of chasteness and a sense of love for ones Lady so pure that it's physical expression is transformed into an external quest rather than a physical urge. It's not even like this is a new idea, while for some locking ones lady in chastity was a cruel and base way of keeping one's young wife away from the miller's embrace while away on a crusade there was at teh other end of the spectrum a chastity borne of moral ideals and purity of love as expressed in the quest of Parzival.

PArzival wouldnt know intimacy if it bit him on the bum of course as he was away questing for months/years at a time, but what's to say that one can't have perfectly intimate experiences without any physical contact at all if that intimacy is more about friendship and purity of purpose?

It might not be what you're looking for, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to those who do what that sort of intimacy.

A few more thoughts there.