Showing posts with label the paradoxes of consent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the paradoxes of consent. Show all posts

Saturday, 2 January 2016

Ask Giles: Why do you keep saying "BDSM emulates evil"? (I always get consent/give consent, plan scenes, give receive aftercare)

"...what would a Martian think when it saw
one of you hurt the other?"
This question keeps coming up and usually goes something like this:
Why do you keep saying "BDSM mimics evil"? I always get/give consent, plan scenes, give/receive aftercare. The sub has the real power anyway, since they can safeword and I/we attended all these classes and raise money for Amnesty International and...
And yet - I say - what would a Martian think when it saw one of you hurt the other?

"Thinking Like a Martian" is the brainchild of Eric Berne, founder of Transactional Analysis and author of Games People Play.

The Martian, being an alien, doesn't understand English an this is immune to the bullshit explanations people give. It can, however, read body language and behaviour.

It's not a very nice way of thinking because it assigns practical responsibility to everybody in a situation - take a look at Eric Berne's reading of the Little Red Riding Hood.

So what does a Martian see when you do your BDSM?

Tuesday, 27 October 2015

How to think about being a sexual submissive

"Being a sub is confusing because we
want what we don't like, love what we
hate, crave what we fear."
Being a sub is confusing because we want what we don't like, love what we hate, crave what we fear.

It's the Paradox of Consent!

The paradox collapses as soon as you read around the way the brain works. We're really a mess of different sub systems running in parallel. They don't sum to a single position.

This is obvious when you look at non-kinky activities that make us scream, cry or complain - roller coaster rides, bungee jumping, Horror movies, and gruelling sports like long distance running - Why do people even do this stuff?

So there is no paradox, just a committee. However, this leaves us the problem of how to organise our urges so as to live our life in a fulfilled way.

Here's how I see it...

Our three Kink Selves

Submissive Self does the experiencing.
We subs have three selves, each of varying strength depending on who we are and how turned on we are right now.

These are not "inner selves", but rather places we stand from time to time, or hats we wear.

Submissive Self does the experiencing. He wants to submit.

He likes the dynamic. It makes him comfortable and opens the door to all sorts of nice feelings and sensations ranging from intense physical arousal and pleasure through to deep inner peace.

He experiences the hazards of submission - discipline and being on the "wrong" end of sadism - as proof of his submission, but to be avoided even if they do make life more exciting.

Masochistic Self  does the gloating.
Masochistic Self does the gloating. He gets off on Submissive Self's suffering, but not usually while it's happening.

He sees Submission as both a form of suffering and an excuse for suffering - for him, the hazards are the main point.

Masochist often conspires to make things worse and generate new hazards. This can lead to topping from the bottom.

The important thing about Masochist, is that he's only around when Submissive is not. You usually finding getting hot and hard about some "terrible fate" in his past or future.

Vanilla Self does the managing. He seeks satisfaction for his other selves as long as there are no real world consequences.

He vetoes the crazier ideas from the other two selves, and is the one standing ready with the safe word.

An experienced or brave Vanilla Self is content to sit back and only intervene if absolutely necessary. A more fragile one may suddenly pull the plug if surprised or shocked.

Vanilla also deals with the practicalities making it possible to enable both selves to fulfil themselves.

All three selves have their own turn ons and fetishes and these don't always overlap.
(Oddly, this all roughly corresponds to the ego states proposed by Transactional Analysis In TA terms, these selves are probably Masochist (C), Vanilla (A), and Submissive (P).)

How our Kink Selves work together

I think these selves work together to create the submissive experience.

Submissive and Masochist Selves often dance an exquisite waltz. For example, when Xena leaves me kneeling in the corner:

At first, I know Submissive peace. Then I get bored, frustrated and even cross. At which point Masochist kicks in, and I get horribly turned on by my situation. Being turned on makes me happy, so I sink back into my Submissive Self.

Though Vanilla often reins in Masochist, they also conspire to make Submissive suffer.

Sometimes, Masochist turns on Vanilla instead.There are whole kinks based around this, some relying on creating powerful illusions However, outside this self-aware practises, there is a real risk of self destructive behaviour and relationship choices.

Vanilla Self generally works to protect and reassure Submissive; "Don't worry, you can keep submitting, nothing really bad will happen." And, in truth, Submissive often offers a refuge for Vanilla.

What our Three Kink Selves mean for Dominants

You can use our three
selves to... get what
you want.
You can use our three selves to deepen our submission and - within limits - better get what you want.

First and foremost, you need to keep Vanilla happy and quiescent.

This means both respecting our limits, so we feel safe, but also doing your best not to "break character" and awaken our Vanilla selves during intense sessions. If suddenly confronted with our other selves, Vanilla can become embarrassed and take over.

Later, you can praise us in vanilla terms - how brave we were, how magnificently kinky, and be careful about when you address our Submissive Self.

Next, you can make an ally of Masochist. Sure, he can make us a bit pushy, but he's also eager to hand you the keys to the kingdom. Whipping works on me. Corner time works on him. He gets off on cross-dressing, I get off on not getting off. This is all leverage Masochist wants you to use.

You can reward us and turn us on by making Masochist contemplate his mind blowing situation, either with quieter moments - like when Xena makes me kneel - or by gloating; "Look at you, pathetic slave. You can't even come, and now I'm going to whip you."

Finally, what our Three Kink Selves mean for Subs

We subs have a right to happiness, same
as everybody else.
There's a strong temptation to abandon our Vanilla Self. Our other selves yearn for it, and ideas about identity and "True" Submission nudge us that direction. I think that's a bad idea.

Our Vanilla Self is an authentic part of us too, and if we empower it to do so, it will negotiate "placements" for our other selves that will make us happy. This is similar to doctors picking their speciality, and priests picking a parish. Having a calling doesn't mean you don't have preferences or that these become irrelevant.

However, for me, it;s the balance between Submissive and Masochist that defines what kind of subs we are.

Somebody who is mostly Masochist is really a "bottom", seeking particular masochistic experiences. To them, submission is a masochistic act, great fun but not sustainable. This can cause confusion and crossed wires. I also suspect that some bottoms evolve into submissives, but don't always realise they've done it.

Somebody who is at least half Submissive is a real sub, more into the D/s dynamic than any particular action. However, being strongly submissive can be a bit embarrassing; it's easier on the ego to pitch oneself as an adventurous bottom, heroic connoisseur of pain! This also causes confusion.

The important thing, though, is to accept all three selves - Submissive, Masochist and Vanilla - as they are and to get them to work in harmony.  We subs have a right to happiness, same as everybody else.


Don't resign yourself to just getting off on other people's adventures! When we started out, my wife was vanilla. Use my manuals to help you walk the same Femdom path! There's one for him, and one for her

Saturday, 18 April 2015

Consent in Roma: The Vanilla Dominatrix and Consent Culture

....the Vanilla Dominatrix isn't
interested in consent.
ShinyDiscard on Reddit remarked:
I've read previous articles from you but I find it hard to distinguish the consent in some of your writings.
I promised a follow up article, and this is it. 

(The tldr is; (a) All my consent is by necessity up front. (b) I don't mind putting up with bad things to get to the good things. (c) I'm a submissive, so the fact of putting up with bad things turns me on. (d) I have hard limits, but we never go anywhere near them.)

I don't talk a lot about consent because the Vanilla Dominatrix* isn't interested in consent.
*Generalizing here, your mileage may vary.

I mean, yes, she needs your consent. She's doesn't want to be evil for real, and the fact you consent is what gives her permission to explore being selfish and in charge.

However, she's vanilla -- doesn't identify as kinky -- and therefore has no motivation to make any mental effort in the erotic sphere where she would usually expect to relax.

Put her in charge? Fine.

Ask her to have long discussions about specifics, get affirmative consent for each and every action, or check in with you throughout whatever it is you get up to? Why should she bother?

She's not interested in the BDSM subculture, and therefore not interested in engaging with the complexities of Consent with a capital "C". This was all your idea after all!

This is less of a problem than it sounds. Let's back up a little bit. Why is consent so important in BDSM?

Monday, 2 June 2014

Erotic domination is more moral than sport! (Or, "How to feel good about being a dom or dominatrix")

....your sub/bottom also gets off,
which makes erotic domination
more moral than sport!
One way of looking at it is that BDSM is an erotic sport.

Though sports have rules, they are emotionally real to the participants, cause real pain and real humiliation, and grant permission to do and feel things on the field (or in the court etc) that you would not in the "real world".

So just as you might get a real buzz out of beating a friend at - say squash - and yet that might have no bearing on anything outside the squash club, in BDSM you get off hurting and humiliating a lover, and that has no bearing out of bed.

The only difference is that your sub/bottom also gets off, which makes erotic domination more moral than sport!

Why not introduce some Female Centered Femdom to your relationship?

Monday, 23 July 2012

The problem with Vanilla Subs


A dominant mate of mine was told by his vanilla ex - "Thank god I don't have to do any of that nasty stuff again."

Privately, he reckoned this was rubbish. “Orgasms don’t lie,” he said.

As a sub myself, I think it’s more complicated.

Even though it’s consensual, D&S simulates evil and feels real to the primitive parts of the brain. (Yes, I know there’s also fluffy stuff in there about trust and intimacy.)

This simulated evil is at least half the fun. However, it creates problems with vanilla people who haven’t had the years to work it through.

Bad for a vanilla dom to whom it simply *feels* morally wrong. Worse for the vanilla sub.

The vanilla sub experiences the simulated evil direct and unmediated… the violation of will and body, the humbling and humiliation, the forced intimacy…

and they get off on it.

This is a supremely dark place to be and one that challenges a person’s very identity, especially if they’ve had to fight for self determination in this big mean world of ours.

I think the best approach is to be very careful how you “frame” the D/S part of your relationship.

Are you all D/S is darkly romantic, authentic, significant?

Perhaps it would be better to cushion your sub by treating it as just a bit of fun: no big thing, just make believe or an erotic sport. Joke that you do most of the actual work and she gets most of the orgasms.

Most of all, in the immediate aftermath of your sessions, get back to normal as quick as possible!

Monday, 20 February 2012

Part-time Femdom gives you more certainty than lifestyle/FLR/WLM

Over on another blog, a submissive male referred to his mistress-wife giving him the gift of a year of chastity.

Of course, for a submissive male, it is a gift (though my book is all about making this worth her while). The snag is that part of the buzz comes from it also being a torment.

So you end up with...
  • It is evil for a mistress to force her slave to be chaste
  • It is good for a wife to pretend to force her submissive husband to be chaste
You get the same problem with all the whips and chains that go with a Femdom eroticism.
  • It is evil for a mistress to be callous or sadistic to her slave 
  • It is good for a wife to pretend to be callous or sadistic to her submissive husband
Some people can carry this off. Most people - and this means most women - find this a bit confusing on all levels, including the moral one. If you weave fantasies of evil into real life, then there's a natural fear of becoming evil. The brakes are on.

Meanwhile, the male submissive is caught in the paradox of consent:
  • The slave naturally pleads with the mistress for the experience to end.
  • The submissive husband naturally wants to experience to continue (and enjoys pleading).
So, if he pleads or whines, is this an attempt to negotiate the rules of the game, or just in-character emoting? How is she to tell?

If - like me - Femdom attracts you because it creates islands of certainty, then this is a bit of problem.

If the Femdom relationship is  strictly part-time, however, things are simpler.
  • She can be a mistress with no real world consequences.
  • He can be a slave, with no reference to the real world.


I prefer it that way...