CerebralDomination

Subs, Bottoms, Or Simply Victims When We Fly?

2011-01-14T19:34:00.000-08:00

The situation at airline "security" these days revisits the D/s or S/M metaphor yet again. Of course, I trust that readers recognize the key difference: our participation in the "security-play" is clearly not consensual. Thus, we are subject to Domination or Topping by airport "security," even though we do not wish to play!

That said, however, isn't it an absolutely marvelous abuse of power? They run their scanners and get a free peak at our bodies! Apparently, the outlines of the penis, scrotum, and breasts are quite clearly visible, and I understand that pubic hair may actually be discernible to the trained eye!

I do not object as much to the pictures, even though some of these will, almost inevitably, find their way onto the Internet sooner or later. The real issue is the exposure to radiation, which can be a daunting proposition for one who has already had a melanoma. Sunscreen, alas, won't do us much good.

Of course, we may simply refuse the visual scans. In that case, we are welcome to be groped and fondled instead. The stories abound; the crotches of nuns have been fingered, breasts have been squeezed, and one poor woman who had undergone a mastectomy had that missing breast "examined" most thoroughly.

Are these assaults truly for our "security"? Perhaps. However, I suspect they are also a raw abuse of power, which must stiffen the pricks of various people in positions of authority. This is NOT D/s and it is NOT S/M. It is instead raw sadism on the part of those who seek victims, rather than partners.

The Differentiation Between Sex And Play

2010-04-28T21:51:00.001-07:00

A discussion of this sort might almost arouse suspicion of a Clintonian equivocation. Essentially, "play" may involve any amount of activity which includes sexual content, while "sex" clearly refers to some sort mutual involvement, whether coital, oral, anal, or otherwise (or any combination thereof).

Where does one draw the line? Through such techniques as hypnosis and hyperempiria, many people become more open to suggestions (assuming these suggestions are agreeable). There are many documented cases -- to say nothing of videos circulating along the Internet! -- which establish that a small group of women can actually have orgasms just from the verbal instructions (i. e., the suggestions) of the voice delivering them. Now, if a practitioner, using hypnosis or hyperempiria, begins talking to a woman (who is fully clothed and stretched out on a reclining chair), and she has an orgasm, is it not somewhat unreasonable to claim that the two have been "sexually involved"? Presumably, most people would agree that such a completely verbal exchange does not constitute "sex."

We may now extrapolate. The fact that a woman -- or, we may similarly infer, a man -- has an orgasm does not mean that she (or he) has necessarily "had sex." In that case, if there is no orgasm, it should be even less likely that "sex" has been enjoyed.

What, then, is meant by "play." Pure play may involve a fetish (e. g., breast-play, medical-play, even water-play) between two people who are not otherwise sexually engaged. I respectfully submit that situations of the sort described below are indeed "play," rather than "sex":

(1) A woman with a urine fetish expressed a desire that a man with some interest in water-play accompany her to a park. By arrangement, they sat facing each other across a short distance on park benches. The woman wore a very short skirt and white underwear. The man could easily be able to watch her urinate; the wet garment revealed precisely what was happening as she slowly released some fluid from her bladder. The mission accomplished, the two returned to their automobiles and drove back to their respective homes, highly aroused.

(2) A woman wanted to be spanked on her bare bottom. An accomplished spanker obliged this request most thoroughly, and afterward rubbed some salve into the buttocks. She got dressed, they chatted for a while, shared lunch at a nearby eatery, and went their separate ways.

(3) This next activity simply takes the matter a little further. The couple engaged in medical-fetish, with the male "doctor" providing a very thorough "examination" to the female "patient." The latter became so highly aroused that she easily climaxed during the "internal" portion of the exam. Perhaps -- in a variant of the same hypothetical story -- she enjoyed several orgasms. Thereafter, she got dressed, and the "play" was over.

The last example above is essentially no different than the others, save that nudity is introduced into the equation, along with one or more orgasms. However, we can scarcely argue that nudity equates to sex; nude beaches and camps all over the world provide ample testimony to the contrary. Why, then, maintain that the third scene is "sexual," when the only support for this position is the orgasm -- something which might also have occurred simply from the spoken word (i. e., a form of conversation)? And, if one orgasm leaves us within the realm of "play," we have surely opened the floodgates; two, or three, or four orgasms ought not change the equation.

Of course, one might insist that anything "sexual" in nature constitutes sex. Nevertheless, I prefer to believe that there is a clear line of differentiation here. I also believe that one may remain honestly monogamous -- i. e., have sex with only one person -- while nevertheless enjoying "play" with one or more other people.

American Politics: D/s or S/M??

2010-02-13T21:30:00.000-08:00

This is certainly a rather tricky issue, but one worthy of reflection. Based on the definitions established earlier within this blog, I should prefer to suggest that there is something quite different at play here. In other words, if asked whether the political realities we confront today suggest D/s or S/M, I should simply answer as though this were a "yes/no" question: No!

I believe that there are some rather cruel, mean-spirited people in power at present -- both Democrats and Republicans (not that there is really terribly much difference). The real "power," of course, is manifested by the financial elites and the "big" corporations (e. g., "big" oil, pharmaceuticals, etc.). Clearly, these people are intoxicated by their "power," and by the "control" it enables them to exert. To this extent, the situation suggests D/s. No less certainly, they show a callous disregard for the pain they inflict; indeed, it seems to arouse them. To this extent, they seem "sadistic." However, the issue of "consent" is lost in the descriptions above, and thus I feel that while a label like "control-freak" or even an adjective like "sadistic" may apply, we are dealing with a completely different "relationship."

I recall hearing rumors of how certain politicians would amuse themselves by watching films of the Vietnam war -- i. e., they would observe the effects of napalm bombs dropped on civilians. I wondered whether the sight of the poor Vietnamese running for their lives with their skins on fire stiffened the pricks of these individuals, and if so, what sort of psychopaths were running the country at the time. If the accounts were indeed true, one might argue that these were vile, sadistic people, but here we must not confuse such behavior with a consensual relationship. Worse still, of course, was the cruelty of the Roman Emperor, Nero -- but again, he simply tortured and murdered victims.

On the other hand, perhaps the American people have voluntarily given up control. Perhaps we are simply -- and consensually -- permitting our representatives and senators to sell out our nation to the "banksters," or giving control of our destiny to criminals, frauds, liars, and selfish thieves. In this case, one might argue for the D/s relationship. However, the analogy is once again hopelessly far-fetched. We may indeed have given up "control" (assuming we actually had any!), but most people are completely ignorant of the long-range consequences of contemporary policies. Most are similarly unaware of the implications of these obscene debts, and equally ignorant of many of the behind-the-scenes machinations.

In sum, then, while one might argue that control has been voluntarily surrendered, the perception proves an illusion; while one might suggest titillation (sexual or otherwise) by the infliction of pain, the analogy is flawed. In a true D/s relationship, it is imperative that both parties fully understand the dynamic between them. Any pain inflicted in an S/M relationship must be arousing and fulfilling for the Bottom as well as the Top. Thus, I must politely maintain that such adjectives "cruel" and "sadistic" are not completely synonymous, and that for the purposes of this forum, our political leaders neither Dom us nor Top us; they merely abuse us!

Cerebral Domination and Covert Hypnosis

2009-06-08T21:23:00.000-07:00

A blog of this sort is perhaps not the best forum for a discussion of hypnosis. Nevertheless, the notion of "covert hypnosis" -- which some authorities identify as "conversational hypnosis," and which is certainly quite similar to the "indirect hypnosis" of Erickson -- invites comparisons.

The reader should of course be aware that there has never been a documented case in which someone was truly hypnotized against his or her will. That said: when a subject has been hypnotized, he/she is more open to suggestions, assuming those suggestions are agreeable.

This past semester, I once again engaged in some personal work with one of my students. During the course of a few months, I have led her to change certain destructive behaviors -- e. g., to stop smoking and consuming alcohol. I also helped her reverse course considerably in school, with the result that her grades were far better than she had initially feared they might be. Finally, I have encouraged her to address a couple of major personal problems which she had been ignoring.

A colleague, aware of my involvement with hypnosis, suggested that much of my success was due to skillful application of Ericksonian techniques. He referred to "covert hypnosis," a notion I actually find somewhat distasteful.

I felt somewhat more comfortable with commentary from the other direction. A friend who knows of my work with cerebral Domination maintained that I have been "Domming" this student, even though the Domination was surely on a very subtle scale (and, for obvious reasons, without bondage, discipline, nudity, etc.)

I suppose I might throw this one open to discussion. Have I been practicing cerebral Domination (as I prefer to believe) or covert hypnosis?

Another Dreadful Literary Effort

2009-04-18T12:00:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow’s NY TIMES (19 April 2009) will post Sallie Tisdale’s review of WETLANDS, by Charlotte Roche. Yet again, we see apparently dreadful literature with relatively little to convey vaulting up to “best-seller” status (throughout Europe; also thus acknowledged for briefly topping Amazon’s international list).

In her first paragraph, Tisdale writes, “As much as sales, ‘Wetlands’ generated controversy and debate in Europe; critics described it as ‘taboo-busting,’ ‘disgusting’ and ‘deeply perturbing’; some dismissed it as pornography.” Later, the same critic also addresses the question of “whether it is pornography or literature.”

I ask, again: Are the two mutually exclusive???

Admittedly, I haven’t read Roche’s novel. She is yet another “insider” – in this case a TV celebrity. It is her first book, and it sounds as though it would never have seen print had it been written by someone with less name recognition. I shall invite readers to peruse the entire review themselves. Suffice it to say that Ms. Tisdale was not impressed by this work, which certainly appears to offer little of interest. Meanwhile, I again submit that there are doubtless many who would welcome a product superior to the garbage which is in print. We shall see. . . .

Bergner's Book Released -- But Can't Someone Do Better

2009-01-25T21:23:00.000-08:00

Surveying the Outer Reaches of Lust, by Daniel Bergner, has been released by HarperCollins and reviewed by the New York Times. Of course, Mr. Bergner is a staff writer for the New York Times Magazine, and is thus an "insider" in the publishing world. Nevertheless, unless I misinterpret the review, I must politely submit that all of these things are unfamiliar territory for him. In fact, it is clear that he, himself, is strictly "vanilla."

I wonder whether the market is ready for a far more extensive book about the "outer reaches of lust." If so, I should certainly love to take a crack at writing such a volume!

Latest Story Published Online; More Thoughts On Bondage

2008-12-24T12:55:00.000-08:00

My story, "The Bondage Freak," appeared in the December issue of BarebackMagazine.com. This tale is actually somewhat biographical, in that I did have an experience very similar to the narrator's (cf., my post of April 6, 2008).

It is important to remember that not all people respond to bondage the same way. That said, it is probably safe to assume that the majority of people who experience it willingly find the complete surrender of control sexually exciting. Bondage really works best in a relationship of absolute trust -- and, in that sense, perhaps where cerebral Domination is to at least some extent operating (whether by deliberate design or on a more subconscious level).

The woman who asks me to bind her is doubtless aware that I do not intend to murder her; neither shall I cripple, disfigure, maim, or mutilate her, nor affix my seal upon her with a branding iron. She does not expect me to photograph her and run her pictures over the Internet. In fact, she has a very clear and precise idea of what we shall do, and has willingly assumed the sub role.

As mentioned, sometimes bondage is an end in itself, with nothing further required. And, of course, sometimes it lends itself to other forms of play. I may perhaps write more extensively about some of the more esoteric applications of bondage in future posts. Stay tuned, and Season's Greetings.

On water-play and cerebral Domination

2008-09-17T17:42:00.000-07:00

My short story, "Water-Play," was published in the September, 2008, issue of BarebackMagazine.com. A few friends have asked me about the connection between water-play and cerebral Domination, and I also received an e-mail from A. H. to which I should like to respond.

The protagonist in any first-person narrative is not necessarily the author. As the medium is fiction, the writer is indeed free to draw upon autobiographical resources, but he may also embellish, romanticize, and otherwise distort the tale. I hasten to append that I may be completely vanilla myself -- or I may even be a woman. Only a handful of individuals know for certain. . . .

"Water-Play" clearly does offer an example of D/s behavior, at least initially. The karate teacher binds her, plops her in the tub, and then tickles her in order to force her to befoul herself, so to that extent (including the "denial" play), he and Sue engage in D/s. What is presented, however, can in no way be confused with cerebral Domination, and it's pretty bland for conventional D/s.

Replying to A. H.: Yes, you are absolutely correct. In regular D/s, a Dom may deny the sub permission to urinate, force the sub to urinate, or urinate on the sub. This story would have presented cerebral Domination had the teacher originally wanted to engage in water-play, and had he then been able to Dom her so completely that she now wanted to do so, not to gratify him, but rather because she effectively shared the same desire. You understand completely!

Bondage (without "discipline")?

2008-04-06T14:29:00.000-07:00

Somehow or other, this topic arose during a conversation recently. The question concerned the use of bondage as an end unto itself, and may have been prompted by a scene in "The Floundering Undergrad" (cf., my three-installment tale in BarebackMagazine.com, beginning October, 2007) in which the student is tied up and then tickled.

I must again remind the reader that D/s is not S/M, and that the element of illusory "control" does not provide the same sort of titillation as does the infliction of pain. That thought articulated, bondage play may arise in both D/s and S/M.

From the standpoint of "power" or "control," bondage underscores the notion of complete and total surrender. The sub is, for all intents and purposes, helpless, yet this capitulation may in fact be most exhilarating and liberating. This paradox will make no sense to those who have never experienced it, but those who have may well recognize the fact that they were actually empowered by their bondage.

I have met only a few women who were true "bondage-freaks" (or "bondage-sluts"), and distinctly recall one woman whose sexual arousal was extreme. I had already secured her legs and right arm, and easily overcame the token resistance she offered as I took her left. However, before I could tie up that last limb, her entire body began to tremble as she experienced a powerful orgasm. I suspect that it is most unusual for a woman to climax in this manner, though a fair number -- and also a high percentage of the male subs I have interviewed -- do indeed become somewhat aroused.

I should, of course, be categorically remiss if I failed to mention some of the more esoteric applications. In Japan, bondage is an art form, generally utilizing a seven-meter hemp rope in one of many intricate patterns without knots. There is also the more obscure bondage with cloth belts, called "obi-kinbaku" by some. Here, the subject is secured and, effectively, abandoned. The effects may include sexual arousal, of course, but some subjects proceed thence to experience psychological breakthroughs, and a very few experience mystical trances, "hypno-dreams," and visions.

This digression is, of course, somewhat far afield. The question was simply whether a Dom might impose bondage as an end unto itself. I believe that the evidence speaks for itself. It does not matter whether the sub has an orgasm or a mystical experience, or simply "surrenders" totally to the Dom. Regardless of the final outcome, bondage clearly establishes and delineates the two roles in question. If one party is clothed and free to do as he pleases, while the other is naked and immobile, is there really any question as to which one is the Dom and which is the sub? Moreover, cerebral Domination is by its very nature more "cerebral," and thus the Dom should be able to assert his Domination without the infliction of gratuitous pain.

As always, I shall welcome further discussion on this topic.

Reflections On Role-Play

2007-11-03T14:27:00.001-07:00

As one who has certainly enjoyed various "play" with subs, I should like to refer readers to Shakespeare's comedy, A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM. Here, the mischievous fairy, Puck, has sport with the humans, repairing their love triangles (or, more accurately, quadrangle!) while genuinely enjoying himself at their expense. His immortal line -- "Lord, what fools these mortals be!" -- speaks volumes. Ironically, some of these same noble mortals later amuse themselves at the attempts of the "Mechanicals" (i. e., the uneducated tradesmen) to perform a play for entertainment on the occasion of the three weddings. Yet presumably all is done in the spirit of friendship, and nothing is mean-spirited. Indeed, the famous speech with which Puck closes the drama reminds readers is highly suggestive, in more ways than one:

"If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumbered here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend,
If you pardon, we will mend. [V.i.400-407]

The notion of a play-within-a-play, and the added element that perhaps we who observe others are ourselves being observed is ripe with implications for role-play. Of course, many D/s relationships involve this activity, and the question often arises as to whether it may serve any purpose other than simple enjoyment. I believe that whether one engages in doctor/patient, teacher/student, cop/driver, or any number of other scenes in which there is a Dominant character (with control, power) and a submissive (lacking both), it is possible to find a metaphor of considerable significance.

Reflect again upon the nature of the D/s relationship. If the sub indeed gives up "control" (itself an illusion) to the Dom, the question arises as to who is truly in control. Demetrius and Lysander join Theseus in kind-hearted laughter at the bumbling performers, but were they not the source of Puck's merriment earlier? Who is laughing at whom? Who is "controlling" whom?

It is strange how the dualistic notion of Dom/sub contrasts with another simple game played by children: paper, rock, scissors. Here, paper covers rock, rock breaks scissors, and scissors cuts paper. There is no "greater" and no "lesser"; each vanquishes and is vanquished in turn.

I recommend that those interested in cerebral Domination develop a greater sensitivity and awareness of everything implied in role-play. If they do, they will also develop an enhanced appreciation of their subs, and become better attuned to the subtle ways in which they, too, are being Dominated. As the actors in our own role-plays, we are but "shadows." If ever we offend, we must wait to be pardoned. Perhaps, on some far loftier plane, all our efforts are but a dream, and there is a Puck-like creature laughing at all our pretensions -- including the Dom and sub personae we assume.

Contact Information; also, Reply to H.F.

2007-10-07T14:31:00.000-07:00

Presumably, the hyperlink set up by this website should enable readers to contact me. However, if there are those who have difficulty with such navigation, I am perfectly happy to receive e-mails directly through the following: mestameh@yahoo.com.
*****
I received a query from H. F., and must offer this response: The fantasies to which you alluded are certainly consistent with a submissive personality. Moreover, it is not uncommon for such desires to come into focus at puberty or even pre-pubescence. What you have described leads me to believe you are indeed a submissive, but I must urge you to exercise some caution in exploring the lifestyle. I have a built-in bias towards the older Doms, since the younger ones are often somewhat abusive, and fail to appreciate the dynamics of the relationship.

Domination and monogamy

2007-09-21T19:35:00.000-07:00

Another question which I have been asked concerns my use of the plural: "subs." I shall be brief in the explanation. When romantically involved -- and I am not, at the moment -- I am strictly monogamous. However, this choice does not preclude the possibility of a non-sexual involvement. Moreover, there are certainly subs whom I see quite infrequently. [One visited me only four times over the course of a year, while another saw me no more than once a month.] Thus, I devoutly hope the reader will not jump to erroneous conclusions, and will instead have faith that I keep no "harem." I prefer to think of myself as a "therapist" of sorts -- a Dom who sees very few clients, but may certainly accept more than one at a time.

on the nature of "cerebral Domination"

2007-09-21T19:06:00.000-07:00

One question which often arises is whether sex is always necessary in a D/s relationship. I’m still a little uncertain, but I believe firmly that it is not. For example, when I first meet a sub -- when I deal with someone who wishes to “explore” her submissiveness, or even someone who is relatively inexperienced -- I prefer to establish ground rules. I feel that it is FAR more important for the sub to understand the nature of our interpersonal relationship -- i. e., what I expect, and why. I stress that I am not a cold-hearted, exploitative person taking advantage of what she permits me to do. On the contrary, I am very nurturing and supportive, and genuinely want the experience to be a rewarding one for her. Some subs have had major improvements with their academic studies, advanced their careers, enjoyed creative breakthroughs, and even enhanced their interpersonal relationships as a result of their involvements with me. In turn, I have genuinely enjoyed these relationships, whether or not the sexual act has figured into the equation.
Though all of this sounds very generous and noble, I should also admonish the reader that I am unlikely to be canonized after my death. Arguably, I play my own share of games. Some critics may feel that I lure in certain weaker souls and bend them to my will. Ultimately, however, I have never -- NEVER -- taken advantage of any situation without the full consent of the woman in question. She has surrendered to me, exactly as I knew she would. That I have, on some occasions, exploited her apparent weakness to achieve this end is an undeniable truth. I believe I have had every right to use everything at my disposal to achieve my ends, and that these ends have justified the means taken to attain them. Moreover, I have never crossed the line into abuse, and I have yet to hear from any sub that she got less out of our relationship than I did.
Cerebral Domination, therefore, refers to the way I “get into her head”; how I find the weaknesses and use them to make the sub more submissive. Reduced to the simplest terms, there are things which I (as the Dom) should like a sub to do. Initially, she will do something because I ask (or “order”) her to do it; perhaps later, because she knows it will please me. However, with cerebral Domination, she will do the things I want her to do because she now wants to do them, also. This concept completely revises the old saying, “Your wish is my command”; at this level, the Dom and the sub wish the same thing. And -- strangely enough -- such cerebral tactics do not reduce a sub to the level of a poor, mindless zombie. In fact, my subs invariably become far stronger, rather than weaker; more active, rather than passive. To underscore this argument, I shall close with an excerpt from an e-mail one woman sent me:
“Dearest Don -- I know this sounds weird, but after our last few sessions I feel more empowered than ever. I know that I am now a stronger person, and above all a stronger woman, as a result of meeting you and studying with you. You are a true teacher. Love always, -- J”