All Comments on 'An Ass for An Ass'

Good premise.

Well told, what there was of it.

Nothing except his tongue in her ass. And no reason why she felt he'd be open for eating her ass.

Nothing with her breasts. Nothing with her pussy.

Certainly nothing to any part of his body. Cock? Balls?

She could have had conversation with him while he was tonguing her ass. She could have given him directions as to how to procede. She could have told him to stroke his own cock while pleasuring her with his tongue -- but not being allowed to cum.

Four stars.

I like the idea, but from what information you gave I don’t understand why she was annoyed with him or what they were arguing about for 5 months.

@BlazonG

I have a somewhat concrete idea of what is going on, but I was unsure how much people would care about the specfics of the professional disagreement. I also was not sure how "realistic" it would be for the characters to go through it in great detail since both of them obviously talked about it all before.

Ultimately, I decided to make it as brief and vague as possible, so readers can get to the action without too much "homework".

The reason I gave in the text was the specific reading of "Article 6 of the Agricultural Subsidies Statute". The guy insisted on taking the article literally, while our plucky protagonist tried in vain to push a "what the authors intended and what makes sense" interpretation.

Not in the text itself, the problem I had in mind (vaguely based on things I have seen in my own professional life) was that article 6 of the A.S.S. stipulates that farmers need to signal what sort of crops they intend to plant to the relevant local authorities in order to receive important public subsidies. The obligation to announce the crop is not written down in the article itself, but rather, article 6 references ANOTHER law, saying "in order to rrceive the money, the farmer must fulfill his obligations under [that other law]". That other law in turn says that crops need to be announced to local authorities, and specifies that this must be done by a certain date. The core dispute is ultimately whether "the obligation" literally means "announce the crop by that deadline" or just "announce the crop" (with the consequence for article 6 that the announcement must have been made at the latest by the time the funding under article 6 is requested). The second reading makes sense because missing the deadline under the second law is not actually big deal, the announcement is accepted weeks or months later and still counts as an announcement, the only consequence is, potentially, a small fine for the delay. But the local authorities treat this as "doing it poorly" rather than "violating the obligation".

Mrs Lennengrad thus decided that it stands to reason that missing the specific deadline is of no consequence for the purposes of article 6, as the question of whether it needs to be sanctioned is already dealt with elsewhere, and for the question of whether or not the farmer is worthy of funding, it is inconsequential. Sure enough, her research indicated that the lawmakers probably saw it the same way.

The issue is that Dr.Hendrik is a bit of a stickler, and treats "not doing it the way it is written" as "not doing it at all". He pushed this view through in his department in the ministry, leading to thousands of farmers risking bancrupcy without the subsidies and starting to attack public servants with pitchforks.

The reason I lay this out in detail like that is the genuine question - would the story have been improved by putting all of this in there?

More words from her directing his tongue in her ass.