So what would BDSM liberation look like?

In my ideal personal environment...

I just asked on Reddit, because frankly I don't know the answer.

In my ideal personal environment, after mandatory counselling, we would be able to register our FLR. Xena would be legally protected from assault charges and have certain boilerplate rights over me, some coercive and perhaps enforced by 3rd parties, e.g. creating the legally inescapable chastity device.

Certainly, we would be able to be open about our relationship. I would wear a permanent collar, and I would be able to use the urinals in public toilets without anybody remarking on my chastity device.

However, I don't really see how this could be generalised. There are some irresolvable issues:

Protection from abuse versus the right to consent to BDSM, since outsiders can't tell the difference and - to be honest - even kinky folk wander into grey areas.

Legal recognition of power exchange contracts versus not wanting to legalise slavery, since the former is effectively the latter.

Self expression versus the consent of bystanders, since some sexual self expression potentially exploits bystanders, and some aspects of BDSM are very visceral and unfair to impose on outsiders.

Let's see if my Reddit posting generates some solutions...

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)

Being kinky doesn't make us queer, but kinksters are still oppressed

The illusion of choice.
(We don't have a choice,either.)

There's a nice article by Carolyn Yates in AutoStraddle : Being Kinky Doesn’t Make You Queer.

She makes a valid point: queer and kinky have resonances, but are distinct and we shouldn't blur the terminology.

However, much of the article seems taken up with making a distinction between (a) transgressing normative gender and gender preferences, which is queer and OK to do in public, and (b) transgressing normative power relations, which is kink and not OK to do in public.

The implication is that queer is real and nice but kink is just a game and nasty.

In particular I disagree with this:

But you can hide your kinks. And, in public spaces, with non-participants present, you should. Kink involves consent.

So, being out in public is automatically a consent violation? 

I find that preposterous.

Sure, it's a consent violation if you force your intimacy on other people or use them as an audience. But that's also true for vanilla couples of all orientations as well: e.g. fucking on a park bench on a Sunday afternoon while people were out with their families is wrong whatever your preferences.

However, things like wearing a collar or using verbal protocol - if that's what you do at home - are no more a consent violation than two men holding hands. (That doesn't make these wise activities.)

The illusion perpetrated by the article is that kinksters have a choice, that we can opt in or out of our orientation. 

She conflates the persecution suffered by queer people with the opt-in, opt-out activities with which we kinksters express out dynamics:

As a kinky person, you can opt in, you can opt out, you can play, you can exchange, you can give, you can take, you can end it at any time. Power is everywhere, whether or not you’re practicing power play. It is yours to leave or to take. But as a queer person, you can’t opt into or out of those systems of power. You can’t end them at any time. There’s no safeword for your parents kicking you out before you’ve finished high school. For your new grandma-in-law getting homophobic and transphobic at your wedding reception.

Yes, it's easier to be kinky than queer since it's easier and way less inconvenient to hide. 

Repressing our sexuality
also has consequences

Yes, queer rights are a much, much, more pressing issue than kink rights. I'm happy to be at the back of the queue.

However, we don't actually have a choice about being kinky, and repressing our sexuality has consequences similar to those suffered by all those closeted  queer folk of yesteryear: wasted lives, collateral damage to straight spouses, stress, illness, dysfunctional relationships, compartmentalisation...

Ours is still a love that dare not speak its name. 

In an ideal world, people would wear their collars, call their partner "Sir/Madam" and nobody would bat an eyelid. 

In a slightly less ideal, but still better, world, being outed as a kinkster would have no professional or personal consequences.

We don't live in either of those worlds now. I doubt we ever will. 

Ours is still a love that dare not speak its name. The ease of concealment does not detract from the fact there are still consequences if that concealment fails.

So, we kinksters will always be an oppressed sexual minority. At the very least, this should make us sensitive to LGBTQ rights. It would also be nice if some of that sensitivity would flow both ways. 

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)

Why the Hermione and Ron marriage would work - Feminism and asymmetric relationships

Champion/Commander - a perfect pairing!

(NSFW If you've wandered in here from google, be warned that this blog is mostly about kinky sex and Femdom.) 

So JK Rowling - a woman who married a younger, less famous man who we hope supports her career! - regrets pairing Hermione and Ron.

A proportion of fandom agrees with her: Harry and Hermione should have been together.

This is just plain wrong. Stable relationships don't tend to work like that.

(And there's a Feminist angle on this too, but we'll get to that.)

The only reason we can't readily see this is because Ginny Weasley doesn't get much screen - or page - time, so Harry Potter's romantic conclusion is a bit of a blank.

What would a Harry/Hermione marriage be be like? 

H: "How was your day, honey?"

H: "I did important stuff and now feel drained and grumpy."

H: "Me too."

H: "How are the kids?"

H: "I haven't seen them yet. I've been too busy."

H: "Me too. What were there names?"

H: "So shall we just brood separately this evening?"

H: "Sure."

A complete disaster!

"So shall we just brood
separately this evening?"

Ron on the other hand?

Ron Weasley is a pillar of strength and no wimp either. He's a regular hero, but he's a hero devoted to Hermione. Where she goes, he'll follow.

He'll also make her laugh, pop her serious bubble, and roughhouse with the kids. Where she has intellect, he has emotional intelligence.

Where she is sensible, he is playful.

Both are wise in their own way.

R: "How was your day, honey?"

H: "I did important stuff and now feel drained and grumpy."

R: "Well George and I came up with a new invisible delayed action fart bomb."

H: (Laughs) "How are the kids?"

R: "Making mud sculptures with their wands right now."

SFX: Sound of magic making mud splattering. Children giggle.

H: "I'll change then go take a look."

R: "So Friday night. Shall we go dancing?"

H: "Um. I'm tired but....(grins)... what the hell, you only live once."

How can they not be the perfect match?

...in the bedroom it can come
out as dominance and submission,
though it need not.

Most people sit on a spectrum between what I call Commanders and Champions.

Neither is weak or worthless, one tends to take control and the other to support.

Once has the vision, the other refines and embraces it.

Both have their roles to play: every King Arthur needs his Sir Lancelot.

Harry and Hermione are clearly both Commanders, and Ron is pretty clearly a Champion.

And all the stable marriages I've observed are Commander/Champion pairings (though these are relative positions within the relationship, not absolute.)

In terms or respect and worth, and negotiating position, these are equal marriages. In terms of leadership, they are asymmetric, and that asymmetry can go in either direction.

And of course, in the bedroom it can come out as dominance and submission, though it need not.

Despite a century or so of Feminism, we're still not surprised by a relationship that revolves around the male partner.

...one tends to take control
and the other to support. 

Male Led Relationships are still a cultural default. Female Led Relationships - even though they've always been with us - are still not regarded as a conscious and mature choice for a powerful woman... "Oh look she picked a weaker man", as if strength had anything to do with it.

Imagine if the genders were flipped?

Serious, powerful Herman married playful but fiercely supportive red-haired Rona? 

It would make perfect sense. We'd even talk affectionately about, "...bubbly Rona who always brings Herman out of his shell".

So let's praise the Harry Potter stories for being able to depict male-female friendship, and for not having Harry and Hermione drift into a weird stormy on-off relationship based on mutual admiration rather than compatibility.

And let's ditch the sexism and accept that it's OK for a commanding woman like Hermione to pick a life partner who will revolve around her, making both their lives better.

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)

3 crap things people say about sexual submission

For all that a lot of male subs are crap, it's not helped by the crap that people say about sexual submission. Here are three memes that bug me:

Ultimately, nothing happens
without the dominant

1. The submissive is really the one in control

This is an old one.

It's guaranteed to be off-putting for young dominants - guess what, you're a service provider! - and a poor guide to behaviour for subs.

I'm guessing it has its origins in the early BDSM world of pro-dommes, where it still makes approximate sense. Otherwise, it feels like a wilfully... twee misreading of the situation, desperately trying to make sadomasochism into something nice and affirming.

Of course, the sub has - must have - the ability to pull the plug at any moment. However, a veto is not the same thing as control.

Ultimately, nothing happens without the dominant, and the minimum requirement for D/s is a pro-active dominant and a consenting sub.

2. A submissive is just a strong person looking for somebody stronger

A strong submissive nurturing their
more vulnerable dominant.

This one is so toxic it's hard to untangle!

It paints the submissive as a tragic figure whose strength masks weakness: Look, I'm so strong that my strength is a burden.... I've gone on so long... To me that feels vaguely passive aggressive.

However, its worst sin is that it conflates relative emotional strength with relationship dominance. 

This is misinformation.

It discounts the possibility of a strong submissive championing and nurturing their more vulnerable dominant. Its implied advice for emotionally strong submissives is about as useful as telling a tall woman to look for an even taller man. It also obscures the risk of being drawn into vanilla submission to a weaker but emotionally person. Finally, it paints the D/s relationship as vaguely paternal/maternal (how patronising and unattractive for many dominants ) and implies that a proper dominant must be strong all the time.

The truth is, dominance and submission are relationship orientations or preferences. If there is a correlation with relative emotional strength, it is only a weak one.

3. It takes strength to submit

 It takes strength not to submit.

No it doesn't. It takes strength not to submit.

OK, at first it takes strength to transgress gender roles and vanilla norms. And perhaps some submissive acts require emotional or physical bravery (though that line of argument seems disingenuous, since many of us enjoy being scared).

However, people with a strong submissive streak spend most of our lives submitting one way or another, while seeking out actual kinky dynamics.

We drift into orbiting other individuals, sometimes appropriately, often not. It's where devoted PAs and doormat spouses come from. It's what drives unrequited love and maintains the friend zone. Understanding and embracing erotic submission often comes as a relief since it actually provides a safer outlet for such urges.

If we don't have a dominant partner, we put vast effort into trying to find or make one, even surreptitiously through stealth submission.

Perhaps submission makes us stronger. Having our needs met plugs a chink in our armour. Weathering all sorts of BDSM experiences and coming out whole can make us feel social indestructible  - once you've licked cum off a boot, there's not much in the vanilla world that can truly embarrass us.

Even so, it really doesn't require strength to submit.

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)

Thoughts on Feminism and Femdom for International Women's Day

Vanilla culture treats dominant
women as alluring but daunting.

Dominant women are sexy in a primal way.

Vanilla culture treats dominant women as alluring but daunting, flames attracting orbiting moths.

Unfortunately, vanilla culture doesn't know what to do with dominant women.

...to be tamed, defeated, or shown
their place...

In movies, they still exist to be tamed, defeated, tragically slain, or shown their place... which is odd since the ending always destroys the very thing that the makes them sexy.

In Notting Hill, for example, Julie Roberts's movie star spends the story trying to submit to Hugh Grant's mild mannered bookseller. (Wouldn't it have been better if, at the end, she'd said: "You know the problem? I'm a Hollywood star. I really need a supportive wife." And he'd said, "OK. I can do that.")

...good for an onscreen tumble

These days, dominant women are good for an onscreen tumble, but - with honourable exceptions like Castle -  screenwriters have difficulty imagining what an actual (implicit) female led relationship would look like.

However, the nice thing about vanilla culture is that it treats a woman's dominance as an innate attribute, one that can be dialled up or down, but one that is still innate.

Ironically, BDSM culture, which does know what to do with dominant women, often seems to do everything it can to avoid admitting that the dominance is real.

No latex comfort blanket.

In much of BDSM culture (as it appears online), dominance is fetishwear mantle a woman can put on at the request of her lover. It's a performance that she can learn at workshops. Or it's the result of her ability to manipulate through sex.  Or it's a scripted simulation based on detailed negotiation.

That candle and moth scenario?

There's no flame. The moths are circling the sexy lampshade. Or, yes, they are circling a flame, but only because the moths are tied to a thread with just the right knots, or because the flame is flickering just right, or because it's in the script.

It's easy to see why. 

Femdom transgresses traditional gender roles. Put bluntly, she gets to be bad, he gets to be a wimp. It must often be psychologically - culturally! - easier on both parties to pretend the action is for his benefit, and that there is no real power exchange. 

It's a shame though. 

It would be nice if Femdom culture could lead the way: shed the latex comfort blanket and embrace the idea of a dominant woman being sexually dominant and still being herself, and that being OK. 

Fellow male subs. Let go! You have
nothing to lose but your
self entitlement...

Femdom isn't automatically feminist, or good for Feminism. However, as I've argued elsewhere, this kind of authentic or "hard" Femdom is empowering for the women involved - my wife would certainly tell you this if she weren't too busy being an executive - and also expands the range of culturally acceptable behaviour out in the vanilla world.

That doesn't mean that male hard submissives like me deserve a medal "for heroic self-sacrifice to the Feminist cause". Our reward is simply better, more intense, Femdom.

Fellow male subs. Let go! You have nothing to lose but your self entitlement...

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)

Mistress Butterfly: A horrible thought about subs and dommes

Are dominant women trapped in the Victorian
fallen woman experience?

I read Ava's post on Things Subs Say and wanted to box some ears. Particularly over this bit (my cuts):

You thought this was something different than it was. You were a way to get it out of my system... You’re not relationship material. You’re part of my private life, not my real life. You were just a fantasy... You were someone I didn’t have to pay. You’re just one thing I wanted to try.

What if, I thought, men treated Romantic Love the same way?

What if only some women were considered available for Romantic Love? What if romantic and mainstream culture colluded to treat them as at least potential sex workers?

What if elaborate artificial courtship rituals were established, ones that loudly proclaimed the woman's romantic power while demonstrating the man's actual material power?

 What if her role were "performative"? Posturing, heightened emotional display and exaggerated costume mandatory, fuzzy slippers forbidden?

What if suitors entered a different headspace, over-promised, over-committed, then walked away and thought that was OK because: "Love is just a game, right? You shouldn't have taken me so seriously."

I was going to write a satire piece, only I realised: we've already seen this world in the great romantic operas of the 19th century.

Fuzzy slippers forbidden...

I've often said that our culture traps male subs in the 1950s gay male experience: the tyranny of traditional masculinity forces us into denial and compartmentalisation with inevitable blow back and collateral damage.

However, I now see that male subs are trapping dominant women in the Victorian fallen woman experience.

Go read Ava's whole post.  A few word substitutions and it could come from La Traviata or Madame Butterfly.

It's the same damn things at work.

The man operates outside his privileged respectable world, but carries practical and assumed male privilege with him.

Dominant woman's edition? Ugh.

The woman is the Other whether she likes it or not.

Her availability for the desired mode of relationship makes her special, but also an expendable, deniable, outsider, and a liability to male reputation.

Just like the 19th-century mistress, those things that make a dominant woman desirable are also those things that can be used to rationalise rejecting her.

I am seriously unimpressed by the state of male subs. And yet, I grieve for them. We really do need another round of sexual revolution, one that confronts and embraces the different dynamics people need. I'm damned if I know how to help this along.

In the mean time, I have a horrible feeling that dominant women might do well to adopt retro dating strategies to filter out the lightweights and the fantasists - a horrible retrograde thought. Ugh.

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)

Experimenting with a snug male chastity device – the perils of turtling and morning wood

Getting smaller!

Most of us chastity fetishists crave a device that fits like a glove, and that can be worn 24/7/365/??.

One out of two is good! I’ve been wearing my custom Custom Chastity device by default for a year now.

It comes off for reasons of practicality and (sometimes) good taste. However, I’ve worn it for over a week at a stretch without being aware of the passage of time. As in, "Oh I haven't unlocked for a week."

I’ve also done a whole month with no bad effects … though that was more mentally wearing because, though the device is comfortable and hygienic, it’s still a lumpy thing locked to my genitals, meaning I have to take a little care not to be caught out.

Left to right: Snug CC, regular CC,
HT2, then CC prototype in front.

So I'm pretty sure I could  wear my Custom Chastity device for a year straight if it were practical.

Even, so I really do crave a chastity device that fits like a glove.

Of course it’s a kink thing – we chastity fetishists want to feel tightly locked.

However, it’s also a practical thing. A truly snug device really would be invisible under clothing. In theory, at least, the urethra would also always be automatically lined up with the pee slot.

Custom Chastity prototype

So I challenged Lady Fox of Custom Chastity to produce something really very close fitting.

She was keen to experiment with a willing subject. On my part, I was overjoyed to be able to experiment at all, because custom-made male chastity devices – especially high-spec surgical nylon ones - are not cheap.

I took careful measurements using a proper set of calipers and she produced a prototype – she uses a brittle white plastic these days, which gives you a much more exact match to the final product.

The prototype really did fit like a glove. 

(Go no further if you prefer not to see a picture of me wearing the final product.)