Counting the strokes

Comments

• 

  RHP User

  11 years ago

  You have too much time on your hands Granddaddy! ;-)

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  11 years ago

  Working in IT I thought your reference to binary was peculiar. Computer System = Input - Process - OutputAfter reading the Output, I am wondering if the Process suffered a GPF (sorry about the acronyms lurkers but I'm sure Eric will define later). Also have you a random generator (sentence, phrase) running somewhere?So the CPU in my head is not only processing the Output, it's also querying the Input. Even I'm confused now, time to find that shot glass and grab the Vodka out of the freezerApart from that, love your work, keep at it

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  11 years ago

  so far,I count four threads,almost a chapter for Eric's Guide To CaneToads

  reply

  like

• 

  Mischeviouslad

  11 years ago

  Looks like my posts are vanishing again. Censorship?- Posted from rhpmobile

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  11 years ago

  Hallo, cwhereitgoes ;" ... grab the Vodka out of the freezer ... "Take a rubber glove and fill the fingers with Vodka (or Brandy).Suspend glove, fingers downmost, in the freezer section of a 'frig.When liquid is frozen peel off the glove.Butt-plug, anybody? Four to choose from. No, I wouldn't advise the fifth - unless diameter is no restriction.Ewik.

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  11 years ago

  Hallo, Freya77 ;The Bufo Marinus (biological name for the Queensland Cane Toad) did actually feature in a logo designed for our corporal punishment group in Perth.It showed an expressionless toad-face behind crossed rattans (an evil expression was discarded).But some members feared that the name would be vandalised into Cane Turds. The logo was abandoned in favour of a simple banner bearing the words 'Perth Bottom-Liners'.There was also the question of whether the logo would defame the frog species. There are, apparently, good frogs.The group operated with outstanding success throughout 2002 - its only year of existence. In January of 2003 I disbanded the group. Jealousy brings threats one dare not ignore.The group has never reformed, despite many pleas for its resurrection.P.S. I am about to diversify somewhat by publishing somewhere on RedHotPie two articles: "Same-sex relationships: Why all the fuss?" and "Moggies Mind Morals".Ewik

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  11 years ago

  I found Hexidecimal(Hex) somewhat more confusing....but I LOVE the idea of making her count in Binary. Cwhereitgoes....perhaps your GPF was caused by an incorrect vtage step, while overclocking and it became unstable???- Posted from rhpmobile

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  11 years ago

  ...- Posted from rhpmobile

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  11 years ago

  Hallo, sirlurkalot ;Counting by any system is workable when there's only two of you involved - administrator and recipient. But an unexpected dynamic intrudes if there are witnesses, such as doing a demonstration at a private party. To some observers the recipient's counting is interpreted as the recipient having no control over the process; that it appears uncomfortably non-consensual. And keep in mind that many partygoers will have no understanding of BDSM and its concept of SSC (Safe, Sane, Consensual).Back in the days when my partner and I were doing demonstrations we - or rather I (the administrator is always cast as the villain) - had some real problems with how our act was perceived. I won't call it a wrong perception because we were performing in front of an uninitiated audience which was, I believe, composed almost entirely of 'swingers'. To them, what they were witnessing was pretty close to abuse.We stopped demonstrating soon after, when an embarrassed hostess relayed some of the complaints she'd received. So, on what was to become our final - or maybe it was the penultimate, I forget - performance we dispensed with the counting (in decimal, by the way) and instead proceded thus:I would ask (unmenacingly) "May we proceed?"She would respond "Yes, please" (never omitting the 'please')In that 'handshake' manner we continued for an indefinite, but not excessive, number of strokes. Permission asked, permission granted. Not a number to be heard. Total attention on the two players. Like a game of tennis, who would put the ball out of court.Then it happened. Probably less than a minute into the 'rally'; ninety seconds at the most. Silence. No response from her. The audience is suddenly alert. Why isn't she responding? I ask again. Now the audience is really attentive. Still no response. Without a word I lay down the cane, rest my hand on her shoulder, and whisper "It's over". Hand-in-hand we face the audience, our two faces wreathed in smiles.It's probably fortunate we didn't do any more demonstrations. Reaction may not have been complimentary, to learning that our entire act was pre-planned to give the not-untrue impression that the recipient was always in total control of proceedings. Duration, number of strokes, manner of termination, were all decided in advance.Did we do wrong? Did we give uninitiated people a dangerous misconception, that real-life was like we had portrayed it - based entirely on cooperation? Maybe we did. But isn't the whole of human evolution based on being able to put on a good act? Lacking any lethal weapons (claws and fangs) to defend ourselves we had to rely on our brains to get us out of awkward situations. We became 'hard-wired' to tell lies. We had to. Otherwise we'd never have been able to sweet-talk dinosaurs into becoming household pets. Trouble is, we fed them the wrong pet food.Eric

  reply

  like

• 

  RHP User

  11 years ago

  The counting was abandoned; she couldn't stop laughing!Eric aka Bottom_Liner

  reply

  like