- The Largest BDSM Community on the Planet

The Largest BDSM Community on the Planet

First and foremost, I am not interested in online-only relationships or chatting. I dont knock
Female Dominant, 44,  Raleigh, North Carolina

Audio Greeting:











Last Online:


 Dominant Female


 North Carolina

 5' 6"

 170 lbs






Actively Seeking:

Dominant Male

Submissive Female

Submissive Male

Switch Women

Switch Men

Submissive Transgender


 Computer Expert

First and foremost, I am not interested in online-only relationships or chatting. I dont knock it, I just have a preference for real flesh meeting and interaction. This means that if we hit it off, you will be expected to make efforts to meet me in real life.

The primary image on my profile is from my recent trip to Thailand, where I got to play with murder kitties (tigers). I was there for a sexual slave training hypnosis seminar... Just saying. *smiles*

I run a private Female-Led Relationships group on Facebook. Please feel free to request to join. Female dominants and tops and male and female submissives and switches interested in learning more about FemDom and FLRs are welcome. I also run an open group on FetLife Search Women In Charge on both.

I am a primarily dominant woman. I do switch in sexual play, and I enjoy it, with the right people. However, my energy is dominant, or alpha, if you prefer. I would never be a good submissive for anyone.

I am super-smart and interested in your mind as much as your body. Im good at sex and sensuality and believe there is more to a successful encounter than a grab for the genitals.

I am poly-minded. I am also very selective.

What my poly usually looks like is that I take loverssubmissives as I choose (did I mention Im selective? I did. I flirt A LOT, and like to explore possibilities), and I share my toys with my friends, women and men, as preferences allow. Its a good time for all.

In my friend choices, I am wide open and accept all manner of personality quirks and foibles. In my partner choices, I am more rigid.

I am NOT new to the lifestyle. Ive been a registered member on FL for 8+ years, and that was just a recent phenomenon. Look me up by the same name there to learn more about me, if youd like. I also write how-to books about the lifestyle, essays and stories, often about Female-Led Relationships, but not always.

I am looking to meet new people, outside of my current circles. For friendship, possibly for play (I tend towards long-term arrangementsless than a handful in the past 20 years. To be clear I dont play casually).

I am also looking specifically for a primary partner. Im not desperate, or needy. I just like to have that companionship. I have a long-term Pet that I adore and see often (hes featured in a few of my photos, including a pic of him in stockings and a cage). I also cuckold him.

I am looking for clean, attractive, engaging, and wanting to be led. I dont do bratty.

Different body types are considered. The spark is the key. I am moderately active, so being able to keep up (and possibly enjoying some woodland scenes) is important.

For the men

I am open to the possibility of partnering with a dominant man for love and co-topping, but that would take a truly spectacular man and dominant to earn my heart and mind.

You are a driven, sometimes-aggressive submissive maleslave who enjoys your masculinity and surrendering to me.

You are also preferably heteroflexible or bi. It helps satisfy my greed, LOL! That said, a VERY suitable straight man could be considered.

For the women

You enjoy courtship and being treated like a woman, being told you are a good girl, and beautiful, while sparring intellectually, and letting your hair down for fun.

You enjoy spending time with women and men, and feeling that rush of sexual energy running through you all day long.

You may be a lesbian or not interested in men sexually. Thats possible for the right candidate. Although I would love a completely bisexual girl (who finds my Pet attractive as well), there need not be contact between he and you. However, there would need to be comfort in nakedness and side-by-side serving, with the understanding that no boundaries would ever be crossed.

For all yall (in the south, yannow)

You are submissive, and wanting to revel in the deep trust and affection that goes along with offering another your mind, heart, and body.

You get hot texting with your partner(s) to create the sexual tension leading to an intense evening together.You realize that creating a red hot Ds relationship is often not simple, but it should feel easy, fun and sexy, and the rewards are beyond most peoples wildest imaginations.

You realize that attraction does rely at least partially on looks.

Your looks are not all I am interested in, though. You must be smart, curious, interesting, and communicate well to catch my eye.

We will take it slow. I am not interested in collaring you within the week, or beating you black and blue on our first meeting (if ever). I am very into the mental aspects of Ds, and I am the primary leader. I will take your mind for a journey of sexual freedom, self-love, and finding yourself in trust and adoration for your domme.


Consent is critical. As is communication. And affection.When writing, please introduce yourself, send a photo (if you do not have one in your profile), and tell me exactly what caught your interest in this profile. If you are not within an hour or so of me geographically, then also provide your plan for meeting me in person within the next two weeks. If you write wanting more than a simple friendship without ANY of these things, I may ask you ONCE, I may simply decline. I prefer someone with an attention to detail and a willingness to per. Thank you for reading, and best of luck in fulfilling your fantasies!

Journal Entries:
4/9/2018 2:44:50 AM

It's Like Toilet Paper Bondage...

Behavior modification, that is.

It's not like handcuffs or chains, where you do something once, and they are bound by your directive, until you free them.

It's far more subtle.


Like restraining someone with toilet paper.

One layer of toilet paper wrapped around their body is real enough to feel, to KNOW, but not enough to hold them.

However, once you've put in enough layers (reinforcement) in enough ways (places), their reality is constrained to what you desire.

Behavior modification is like that. It's not one and done.

It's not something that is set into place, then sticks forever.

It takes tending. Cultivating. Encouraging. More and more layers.

It's like toilet paper bondage.

4/5/2018 3:51:33 AM

Five Point Scale For Topping

One day, I ran across this interesting Five Point Scale For Bottoms post, and while I know that it is too simplistic to cover everything, AND I eschew labels as a be-all-end-all, I also thing it's a very cool idea and way to communicate a preference/concept quickly and effectively.

1. Fetish bottom: "Worship my boots and shine them brightly."

Fetish tops differ from other types of fetishists in that the /activity they eroticise is associated with a bottom. In their purest form, they have little need to interact with the bottom or dominate others in real life encounters.

2. Sadist top: "I'd love to whip you until you safeword."

Sadists take things a bit further, and look for bottoms that will allow them to subject their subjaspects to pain, humiliation, and possibly physical control, such as bondage. The dynamic of the scenes is still one of equality, and it is clear that everything is done for mutual gratification, and ends where the scene does.

3. Roleplay dominant: "I'll be the professor, and you be my student..."

This involves assuming roles for a temporary scene (from a few hours up to a few days) which would normally be associated with inequality and with one person having power or authority over the other: for example, a store detective blackmailing a shoplifter into obeying him. However, it is understood that the goal of the scene is direct mutual satisfaction for both top and bottom (eg, that the "shoplifter's" desire to be held down, "ravished" and sworn at is catered to.)

4. Lifestyle dominant: "Here's how I want things done."

This can sometimes be difficult to distinguish from a long term relationship involving roleplay dominance. However, the essential feature of a lifestyle dominant is their desire to enjoy service over time, in an ongoing relationship. The dominant accepts service with ongoing expectations (negotiated) of timing and quality, for as long as the relationship remains, or until terms are renegotiated.

5. Master: "I will make your life decisions for you."

A Master differs from other types of tops in that they take full ownership of the slave bottom, making decisions not only on submission and the relationship, but on their lives in total. The only decision not within the Master's purview is whether the slave chooses to end the relationship. Therefore, the Master is defined by their relationship with their slave: "Ownership rather than obedience is the defining quality of slavery; obedience rather than ownership is the defining quality of submission."

For myself, within these labels, I'd sit solidly within 4. That's who I am, as other kinds of topping are all about finding the sweet spot to inspire greater submission and furtherance of the relationship itself.

What are your thoughts?

Where do you fall as a top or as a bottom on these scales? Do you find them useful at all?

I think they are quite useful, and use them in discussions with others, to understand them better. Not because other (and more words) won't work, but because this gives a mutual starting point to discuss in further detail.

3/24/2018 3:15:52 AM

When You Limit Your Vulnerability, You Limit Your Love

Sure, people can love you.

For what they know of you. For what they see. For what you allow them to see and to know.

But if you do not allow them to see your flaws, your weaknesses, your vulnerabilities, they cannot love you for them as well.

Those hidden things don't exist in their world of YOU.

And that hurts everyone.

But it hurts you most.

Because you will constantly feel like you are loved ONLY when you are good. ONLY when you are strong. ONLY when you live up to the image you have projected of yourself, instead of being yourself.

And that's a valid choice.

Especially if you are healing yourself from a broken heart, broken promises, or broken trust.

Just understand the choice you are making, so you can make another when it's the right time for you.

3/18/2018 3:58:38 AM

Put Yourself First, Always

To some, this is self-evident advice. To others, it feels anathema. For a great majority, it's just fucking confusing.

Especially in kink. Because, well, we take on roles (both voluntarily and unconsciously) that often require giving up our focus on ourselves or focusing on ourselves, but not too much.

Where is the line?

I've discussed this before, in my writing, "The Needs Hierarchy". I will summarize what I believe for this post.

Dominant's Priorities:

1. Dominant's Needs
2. Submissive's Needs
3. Dominant's Wants
4. Submissive's Wants

Submissive's Priorities:

1. Submissive's Needs
2. Dominant's Needs
3. Dominant's Wants
4. Submissive's Wants

Even with our chosen/inborn roles (whichever you believe is OK with me), I believe that ultimately, every capable adult human is responsible for making sure their own needs get met.

That means practicing self-care. Speaking up when something is missing. Communicating to others when things are not going right and so on.


Dominant, submissive, top, bottom, owner, property, pet, master, slave, vanilla... I believe everyone is responsible for making sure their own needs get met.

That is what I mean when I say "Put yourself first, always." It's what financial advisers mean when they say, "Pay yourself, first." It's what airline personnel mean when they say, "If you are traveling with a small child, secure your own mask first."

Because if you do not take care of your needs, you may have nothing left to help others with theirs.

But what about wants?

Well that's where our roles come in. That's where the line gets drawn in the sand.

For dominants, well, yes, our needs are above our submissive's needs, but our submissive's needs are more of a priority than our wants.

And for submissives, yes, your needs must come before ours, but both our needs and our wants get higher priority (with exceptions, in some cases) than your wants.

Though, it's important to keep in mind that a want ignored for too long can become a need.

No, you don't need a hug RIGHT NOW... but if you don't get that hug at some point, it could quite possibly become critical to your well-being.

So, even wants are important.

But they have more wiggle room.

And it's not just kink.

This is a balance that you can find anywhere, even in the vanilla world.

You MUST be able to think clearly to lead others. Therefore, your need for taking care of yourself, so you can be there for others (co-workers, kids, friends) who need you is key.

When I was growing up, I got the message that complete selflessness in a relationship was the goal. I would put my partner's needs and wants before my own, to the detriment of my well-being, to try to do the right thing (even when I didn't understand that).

All of my relationships, romantic and otherwise, have benefited from me prioritizing my needs. When I take space to be alone and practice self-care, I have more energy to devote to my friends and my lovers, and they feel the energy I have to give them so much more strongly.

Less time is more quality time, and I very rarely snap at people over a difficult day, because I take care of me before I see them, or in extreme cases, I bow out, so that I can recover and not spread the cranky virus.

Do you put yourself first?

Or, do you totally disagree with my point? What are your experiences from either side?

is it different with kink for you than with vanilla life and relationships? Or the same?

3/17/2018 3:29:42 AM

You. Must. Talk Dirty. To. Me. (Or, provide a valid reason, open to proof and defense from all sides, on the proper forms, in triplicate.)

I tend to be direct.

Very direct.

I mean what I say, when I say it.

Sure, sometimes I'm wrong, or I change my mind, but generally, you can take my words, especially about myself, at face value.

You can also believe that I took care in saying exactly what I meant.

And when I say that I don't want to speak sexually with a total stranger on the internet, that seems, to me, like it should be clear.

Apparently, it's not. Case in point (bold is mine):

Duuuuude (second message):

Would You be interested in chatting? :)


If by chatting, you mean talking sexually, no. If you mean having meaningful conversation about topics of mutual interest, maybe.


Alright, well I did mean chatting in the general sense.
But "talking sexually" is such a broad phrase, which can mean a wide variety of things. Do I want to role play? No. Do I want to cyber sex? No. Would I like to potentially explore a D/s dynamic if we happen to click? Probably. I'm up for all intelligent conversation, and since it seemed like you are also intelligent and listed as looking for a submissive, I assumed that "talking sexually" in the context of D/s would be acceptable and certainly not a red line from the get go?
I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and label your reaction as a disenchantment and displeasure with the way a lot of the guys on here correspond with you.


There is no benefit of the doubt needed. I said exactly what I meant.

I am not, right now, consenting to sexual discussion.

It does not matter why or in what context. It matters that I said that.

As far as looking for a sub goes, I would still not talk with you sexually, until I chose to open the door to that. I choose my partners carefully, by liking them as humans, first, rather than by their sexual proclivities.

I also do not play outside of my relationships and tribe, except in cuckolding, and I already have a cuckold Pet and bulls I see.

So, take that as you will.

If you'd like to have a conversation about something you think may interest both of us, then let's do it.

If not, I get it. Simply a lack of communication compatibility.


I also agree with you and always prefer to talk "as humans" first. I apologize if something I said in my first message triggered something, but I never intended to imply that I am only seeking sexual discussion.
But, it's kind of ironic that you seem to be so closed off to discussing topics related to sexuality since you yourself write erotica and say in your profile that "you are not shy about sexuality" and that you "... enjoy talking about everything from sexuality to philosophy".
So to me it seems like you're imposing a bit of a double standard?
Again, I'm not the one who even attempted to initiate sexual conversation, yet somehow I have to convince the girl that publicly advertises her enjoyment of discussing sexuality and writing erotica that I have no intentions to even think about engaging in sexual conversation?


Let me explain something to you.

You validate my consent in the first paragraph, then say "but" and invalidate it all.

I choose who and when to discuss sexual topics. It is no double standard. You also get to consent, when that happens.

I think, perhaps, you are not clear on how all this works.


First of all, I'm not sure why you felt the need to "preempt" me by making it clear that sexual discussion is indeed out of the equation when I hadn't even suggested such a conversation. It's like trying to earnestly dissuade a vegetarian from eating at a steakhouse.
Of course you choose whether or not you want to have a sexual conversation. I was simply pointing out the irony in your unnecessary insistence on imposing these restrictions when it's pretty clear from your profile that you are generally interested in talking about the very things you say you aren't interested in talking about.
If you had qualified what you said by saying that you don't want to talk sexually specifically with me then that's fine. I would never tell a girl I'm not interested in dating generally after she contacts me after reading my profile on a site specifically for dating.


Wow, you have a lot to say about how I am allowed (in conversation with you) to speak my preferences.

I'm not interested in a dominant (or should that be , "I'm not interested in specifically you being a dominant to me"?).

Best of luck to you.


Of course you're allowed to say anything you want (I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I was implying that somehow you weren't?).
I was simply pointing out how the way you communicated your preferences was inconsistent with what was written in your profile.
I'm VERY submissive and have never, and will never (most likely), look to be in a dominant position towards anyone.
With that being said, that does not mean I don't appreciate intelligence, which I thought you had?
Ans again, you are clearly allowed to say anything, but being allowed to say something and saying something intelligent are two completely different things :)
Have a good one!



I made the point about dominance as a joke to try to make you realize how ridiculous your repeated points are. I overestimated you. My apologies for the confusion.

So again, you write to me giving me permission to say what I want, but qualifying it as not being very intelligent.

Because I simply stated that I did not want to speak sexually in our conversation.

So far, you've written hundreds of words on that topic, instead of just accepting it.

To be clear, I very much enjoy talking about sexuality. Just like I enjoy speaking about philosophy.

However, I don't enjoy (or attempt to) talk philosophy with everyone. I don't enjoy talking about deep philosophical matters just anywhere. I don't enjoy talking philosophy at just any time.

Would you question me so closely about whether it were YOU that was the factor?

Would you care as much?

Or is it something specifically about sexuality that is sticking in your craw?

It doesn't matter.

And speaking about sexuality (which I love) is a different beast than chatting sexually.

A point which you seem to be missing.

You are coming across as pushy and entitled by complaining so continuously that I made a simple statement of intent (which is inconsistent with your stated desire to NOT talk sexually right now, anyway).

To be crystal clear: I'm not interested in further engagement with you and I won't respond again.

Best of luck to you in finding what you seek.


You were the one who initiated demarcation of the lines of conversation to exclude sexuality without me even having so much as hinted at wanting

Copyright © 2018 and  All Rights Reserved.
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement

  Browse users in: