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?
Monday, June 8, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Another Dreadful Literary Effort
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. . . .
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. . . .
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Bergner's Book Released -- But Can't Someone Do Better
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!
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!
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Latest Story Published Online; More Thoughts On Bondage
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
On water-play and cerebral Domination
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!
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!
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Bondage (without "discipline")?
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.
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.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Reflections On Role-Play
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)