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.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The Differentiation Between Sex And Play
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.
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.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
American Politics: D/s or S/M??
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!
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!
Monday, June 8, 2009
Cerebral Domination and Covert Hypnosis
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)