Stories of Tie Up Games

Nick and Steven's relationship has many aspects that differ from most conventional relationships, and I believe that within the context of their lives, Nick's sleeping bag was indeed romantic. I'm sure Nick did it with the intention of keeping his boyfriend safe and protected during the action, and Steven, on the other hand, felt all the dominance, authority, and scents of his partner, making the situation incredible for both of them.

Well… for me the story with that sleepingbag was the big reason to keep reading these stories…
Don’t know if romance was the way to get these two together, the sleepingbag was the ultimate start getting both together.

I think the sleeping bag was the perfect venue for it!

I would still find the sleeping bag more appealing... Romantic venue already gives you that given gushy feeling I would say. It is a different feel for me when you have someone deflowered in a somewhat less romantic setting or venue. It makes it more raw and interesting.

Personally, I view it both as right and wrong. Right in a sense that there is actually a need to remove Jeremy from that abusive relationship. Wrong in a way because I think there should be a process instead of it being abrupt. We may also need to consider the psyche of Brad. Would really love much to see or read about a redemption arc for Brad.

I'd say it was the right call. Clear signs of abuse and he had to get out of that toxic environment. Otherwise Jeremy would develop like Stockholm Syndrome and it would be more harmful on him.

Jeremy’s unwillingness makes it a very messy matter, but ultimately that situation was dangerous and messy.

It was an awful situation all around. I don't think it's that possible to say that it was strictly 'right' or strictly 'wrong', because it was definitely a morally blurry decision. Sure they rescued Jeremy and took him out of a terribly abusive relationship, but without his consent. Even at the time, Jeremy wouldn't've seen it as him being rescued, but rather him being captured and taken away from his master.

It was an awful situation all around. I don't think it's that possible to say that it was strictly 'right' or strictly 'wrong', because it was definitely a morally blurry decision. Sure they rescued Jeremy and took him out of a terribly abusive relationship, but without his consent. Even at the time, Jeremy wouldn't've seen it as him being rescued, but rather him being captured and taken away from his master.

Gee that was a messy situation and it’s a really great question. Jeremy needed to be saved from it but forcibly removing him without his consent and all the messiness that it created. Eventually it worked out for the best but boy was that a morally interesting sequence of events. I guess a lot of what’s happened in B&G and it’s a testament to your writing that we can debate these questions

I think it's kind of wishy-washy of me to say, but it was both right and wrong in that scenario. We have to respect Jeremy's autonomy, in that he wanted to be there and he was able to make that decision, but he was also clearly being abused and clearly was not truly in a position to give his consent.

Surprisingly, given how often I tend to point out the characters' mistakes and actions, I really think they handled it in the proper way. They removed him from a dangerous situation in order to recover, and once he had made the choice to go back while in a more lucid state, despite disagreeing with it, they respected his decision.

All in all, quite a nuanced situation, and I'm glad it turned out well. And a commendation to @bondagefreak for writing the situation with an incredible realism in how everyone acted with a bondage twist, as always!

I selected it was both right and wrong but also a sad necessity. I think Nick’s protective instincts kicked in and it could have been far worse if Jeremy had not been removed from Brad’s custody. The tale further down the line demonstrates what Jeremy truly wanted and one can say that Nick was very clairvoyant at that time.

I voted for it was the right call . No one should be in an abusive situation .

Bob for me, please He is extremely handsome and masculine, I love his attitude and light beard... not to mention the fact that he knows how to restrain a disobediant man

Joshua, he is charmingly mischievous and I think I would enjoy that

it was a tough choice between Hunter, Mike and Joey... however my heart will always belong to Joey! He is extremely handsome and manly, plus he seems to sweat a lot! I'm sure he would know what to do if I became disobedient... if he grew a beard it would be even better!! (just kidding)

I’ll redeem myself from the last poll where I didn’t choose Nick and restore order and choose him

When I first saw the question, I initially thought I would answer the usual Shawn, but after rereading it several times, I noticed a nuance. It’s not about who has the right to do whatever they want with you, but rather about who you actually want to go out with—dinner, a trip to the amusement park, the cinema… Which, I think, significantly changes the perspective.

I have a great fondness for Shawn, who, to me, is the perfect "jock"—dominant and protective, with that slightly annoying big-brother vibe that you still love in a friendly way (I’m very platonic in my gay romances). But here, we're talking about love, and Shawn wouldn’t be able to give me that. For a Valentine’s Day date, I expect more from him to order pizza and play video games together rather than seeing him trying to win the giant teddy bear at a duck shooting stand.

So, the real question is: who has the potential for this kind of romance, without being too overbearing? I looked at the different profiles and came to a first conclusion:

Nick, Joey, Hunter, Kyle, and Joshua are the characters most likely to be truly romantic. But there are still some issues:

Nick might be too cold and would probably do it more out of obligation than genuine love.
Joshua is handsome, but he wouldn't be able to be "the man" in the relationship, or at least, he could easily be outshined.
Joey doesn’t seem to have what it takes to really attract me, and he feels a bit too generic.
Hunter seems like the best choice, but mostly because of his personality resemblance to Shawn. I’d say he’s just younger and more considerate towards others. He could be a good choice, but he still gives off that big-brother energy.
Kyle, on the other hand, is handsome and very cute. A real star, always showing off to impress—definitely a true flirt.
So, my final choice would be Kyle. I suppose that, in the end, I’d still somehow end up tied up in a sleeping bag, mouth shut with the worst gag possible, and my nose covered in something sticky… Because, forgive me for thinking this, but I can’t help but imagine that if I do end up in his apartment, all the other guys would just jump on me.

sock slave boy wrote: 4 months ago It’s not about who has the right to do whatever they want with you, but rather about who you actually want to go out with—dinner, a trip to the amusement park, the cinema… Which, I think, significantly changes the perspective.

I feel the need to specify that the question is not who you'd rather go out on a date with, but rather, who you'd rather date. In English, this distinction is quite big. Go out on a date = Faire une sortie avec quelqu'un, aller au ciné, au resto, etc. Tandis que "To date someone" = fréquenter sérieusement quelqu'un et entretenir une relation amoureuse avec cette personne. Vraiment très différent.


As for your choice, it's obviously none of my business, but your reasoning leaves me utterly perplexed.
You exclude Shawn for not being able to show love, and you exclude Nick for being too cold (I must point out that Nick isn't cold at all).
But then you go on to choose Kyle??? - by far and wide the coldest, most aloof and most self-centred guy of the lot??

Time to go back to my roots.... Zack! Stuff me in your locker with those baby blue briefs in my mouth

I do not do dates!