Really specific fetishes

Regular 'readers' will know that, although rules are important to me (I've experienced too much pain in my relationships not to understand the importance that rules can play) I am not one for laying them down.  However, Rule 18 is an exception, as presumably are at least another 17 rules, but we don't talk about those.*

Rule 18, of course, is more in the nature of a guideline as it is offered humbly as advice to a novice domme and it states "Try to avoid sessions with clients who have really specific fetishes and can't get off unless it is done exactly right." 

There are so many violations of Rule 18 out there it is hard to know where to start, but here are a few more that have caught my eye.

 

Only the smallest of dommes can even hope to pull this one off.

 

 

 

Apparently there have to be three of them and they have to be from similar ethnic backgrounds or 'it's just not the same'.  Remember the bit about 'unless it's done exactly right?'  That's why we have Rule 18.

And this is just terrifying.  There are some very sick people out there, if you ask me.

They don't even get to swap roles.  The blonde lady once suggested that she could take a turn holding the feather and declaiming and their client just looked at her as if she was mad - why would that be erotic?  'Exactly right', remember?  And yes: the plastic kangaroo is part of it too, thank you for asking.

This just looks like good wholesome fun... not sure what kind of fun, but yeah, whatever.  Note the decorative use of plastic beads.

I thought of a few questions to ask about this one, but I tend to aggravate 'readers' when this blog strays into politics (apart from the female supremacist kind, of course, but that's less a political statement than a simple acknowledgement of reality) so I'm just not going there...

 

OK, I'll admit that's rather erotic.

 

 

 

* Except Rule 3, which states "You are not expected to have sex with your clients.  Thank goodness."  I am preparing a blog post featuring Rule 3 illustrations: i.e. photos with mean-spirited commentary mocking male submissives looking particularly unattractive: grossly overweight or pathetically skinny (fairness does not feature much in Rule 3), gormless or otherwise repulsive, in the finest hypocritical traditions of this nasty little blog and its unpleasant author.  If you've ever been photographed in loving adoration of your mistress, you might even feature in it, mightn't you?  Worth checking out, anyway.