Fanfiction also has a lot of 'no, don't tie me up, it's humiliating', but I can find ones I like more easily. And I like writing it too, so even better.
Showing posts with label consent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consent. Show all posts
Enjoyment
Fanfiction also has a lot of 'no, don't tie me up, it's humiliating', but I can find ones I like more easily. And I like writing it too, so even better.
Humiliation or Humility
Humility; the quality of being honest and respectful.
Humiliation; the abasement of pride; being reduced to a state of lowliness.
I can see where the root is the same. But being humble and being humiliated are two entirely different things.
Having humility, in my mind, is being aware of who you are and the possibilities around you. You don't know what sort of experiences and knowledge can be offered by everyone around you, therefore you are humble and respectful of those around you. You are respectful of yourself, the people and things around you and you act with care.
Humiliation, that's something entirely different.
I'm not sure why people feel the need to be humiliated. So many people describe it in an erotic way and I just don't get it. Why is wearing women's underwear humiliating to men? Why is licking someone's feet or boots humiliating? Why is getting fucked humiliating?
If you've consented to whatever humiliating event is happening, how is it humiliation? Is licking your Mistress's feet after begging her to be able to do so humiliating? Is it really making you less prideful? Is it humiliating to be urinated on by your Master after you expressed an interest in trying watersports? Does it make you feel low?
I like licking my boy's toes and sucking them. But it doesn't make me feel low. It makes me happy. It makes me happy because he squirms and giggles and he enjoys it. I love having him suck my toes too, so I know how good it feels and I want him to experience it too.
Watersports are another thing I don't consider humiliating. Your top is marking you as theirs. What could possibly be humiliating about that? That's something to take pride in, if anything. Same with so many 'humiliating' activities.
There is an excitement to consensual non-consent and I understand the importance of role play, but it still wouldn't be something I would ever consider humiliating.
Perhaps humiliation play is a better term for it.
Maybe I'm just wordy today.
Humiliation; the abasement of pride; being reduced to a state of lowliness.
I can see where the root is the same. But being humble and being humiliated are two entirely different things.
Having humility, in my mind, is being aware of who you are and the possibilities around you. You don't know what sort of experiences and knowledge can be offered by everyone around you, therefore you are humble and respectful of those around you. You are respectful of yourself, the people and things around you and you act with care.
Humiliation, that's something entirely different.
I'm not sure why people feel the need to be humiliated. So many people describe it in an erotic way and I just don't get it. Why is wearing women's underwear humiliating to men? Why is licking someone's feet or boots humiliating? Why is getting fucked humiliating?
If you've consented to whatever humiliating event is happening, how is it humiliation? Is licking your Mistress's feet after begging her to be able to do so humiliating? Is it really making you less prideful? Is it humiliating to be urinated on by your Master after you expressed an interest in trying watersports? Does it make you feel low?
I like licking my boy's toes and sucking them. But it doesn't make me feel low. It makes me happy. It makes me happy because he squirms and giggles and he enjoys it. I love having him suck my toes too, so I know how good it feels and I want him to experience it too.
Watersports are another thing I don't consider humiliating. Your top is marking you as theirs. What could possibly be humiliating about that? That's something to take pride in, if anything. Same with so many 'humiliating' activities.
There is an excitement to consensual non-consent and I understand the importance of role play, but it still wouldn't be something I would ever consider humiliating.
Perhaps humiliation play is a better term for it.
Maybe I'm just wordy today.
The Psychology of SM
I found a very interesting article about SM, by Charles Moser. I suggest reading the whole thing, though it's a giant wall of text, but these are the parts I found most interesting:
"There is no accepted definition of what constitutes S/M behavior and the spectrum of sexual interests of those individuals who adopt an S/M identity is quite broad. Colloquially, we can define S/M as an erotic interest in giving and/or receiving painful (either physically or psychologically) stimulation. It should be noted that the perception of pain is in the judgment of the observer; the recipient may or may not report the experience as painful."
I will make one note here, I, and I assume others, don't always necessarily see SM as erotic. Yes, sometimes it's incredibly arousing or wonderfully sexy, but sometimes it's just a physical and spiritual release. It is a different kind of pleasure than sex or foreplay.
"For the purpose of the present article, an S/M practitioner is an individual who actually takes part in the behavior and self-defines as being involved in S/M or a similar term.1 Additionally, for the purposes of the present article, S/M practitioners engage only in consentual acts among adults. While members of any group can engage in nonconsentual acts, it has been unfairly and incorrectly assumed that S/M practitioners must somehow be forced or coerced, or force or coerce their partners, into engaging in these activities."
"While there is some disagreement, there is little doubt that at least some S/M practitioners are able to sustain long term relationships. The role of S/M in these relationships varies in a number of ways. Some couples only engage in S/M during some sexual inter actions, some always have at least an element of S/M in all sexual interactions, some employ S/M role-plays throughout the relationship but not at all times, and some attempt to live out the S/M roles at all times. Some individuals see S/M as part of foreplay (a sex-style), others see it as part of a lifestyle, while still others fluctuate between these two states (Breslow et al., 1985, 1986)."
Breslow, N., Evans, L., & Langley, J. (1985). On the prevalence and roles of females in the sadomasochistic subculture: Report of an empirical study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 303-317.
Breslow, N., Evans, L., & Langley, J. (1986). Comparisons among heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual male sadomasochists. Journal of Homosexual ity, 13{1), 83-107.
I'm glad that this is addressed. You will find just as much variation in SM relationships as you will in vanilla relationships.
"Prior to Krafft-Ebing (1886/1965), S/M was neither a sickness nor a sin (Bullough & Bullough, 1977). It seems that behaviors that we might consider to be S/M were commonly found in ancient marriage manuals (Kokkoka, 1150/1965; Nefzawi, 1400/1964; Vatsysayana, 450/1964). It was only in the late fifteenth century that the first unambiguous case report of S/M was reported, and then as a medical curiosity rather than a problem (cited by Ellis, 1936). Other case reports written in a similar vein followed, but S/M was still seen as a curiosity rather than pathology. While S/M behavior probably existed before the 15th century, historical accounts do not in clude enough information to ascertain whether the behavior was done consentually and/or for erotic purposes in order to make an unambiguous categorization."
Krafft-Ebing, R. von (1965). Psychopathia sexualis: A medico-forensic study (F. S. Klaf, trans.). New York: Bell Publishing Company, Inc. (Original work published 1886)
Bullough, V., & Bullough, B. (1977). Sin, sickness, and sanity. New York: Meridian Books.
Kokkoka (1965). The koka shastra (A. Comfort, Trans.). New York: Stein & Day. (Originally written 1150)
Nefzawi, S. (1964). The perfumed garden (R. Burton, trans.; A. H. Walton, ed.). New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. (Originally written 1400 A.D.)
Vatsysayana (1964). Kama sutra. New York: Lancer Books. (Originally written 450 A.D.)
Ellis, H. (1936). Love and pain. In Studies in the psychology of sex (Vol. 1). New York: Random House. (Original work published, 1903)
I don't mind being a bit of a curiosity. A sexual psychopath, however? I'd decline.
"As S/M behavior is seen transhistorically (Ellis, 1936) and cross-culturally (Ford & Beach, 1951), we can assume it is part of the repertoire of innate human sexual behaviors. Behavior which appears to be analogous to S/M is also common among mammals. For example, Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, and Gebhard (1953) name 24 different mammalian species which bite during coitus. Addition ally, Gebhard (1976) remarks "From a phylogenetic viewpoint it is no surprise to find sadomasochism in human beings" (p. 163)."
Ellis, H. (1936). Love and pain. In Studies in the psychology of sex (Vol. 1). New York: Random House. (Original work published, 1903)
Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. Scranton, Pennsylvania: Harper & Brothers.
Kinsey, A. C, Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female.Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.
Gebhard, P. (1976). Fetishism and sadomasochism. In M. Weinberg (ed.), Sex research. New York: Oxford University Press.
All in all, a very well thought-out and thoroughly researched article. I included the references, since I'm quite interested in looking up these books myself and I'm assuming there will be others interested too. I want to read all of these books he's referenced, as well as more by him.
Snuggly BDSM love
Aw, look at the snuggliness.
I can never get enough of this; affection and trust between two people in a D/s relationship.
So many people expect these relationships to be unhealthy, full of fear of the dominant and anger or even disgust towards the submissive. I've seen some unhealthy kinky relationships, yes. But I've seen far more unhealthy vanilla relationships. The strong kinky couples (or trios, or groups) that I've met are stronger for their kink and for the trust and communication something like this requires. You can't just snap a leash on someone without talking to them about how they feel about it first, and you can't expect any relationship to work if you're not willing to share thoughts and feelings in both directions.
Height and dominance
It's quite simple: Willing submission.
Just because this man could take control of whatever scene they're in the middle of, just because he could wrestle her and win, just because he is stronger, faster, fitter, taller, musclier, 'manlier', etc... doesn't mean he wants to be on top.
Yes, sometimes it's fun to wrestle and sometimes it's fun to turn the tables (if it's pre-negotiated, otherwise feelings can get hurt) but if you're a male submissive, you don't have to find an Amazon woman to dominate you. You can find a tiny woman to do that just as well. I understand why people may like their dominants to be taller, etc, since I think height difference is quite sexy, but contrary to what I was taught by Invader Zim, being taller does not make you superior.
Anyhow, I adore this photo. She has great attitude and my smoking fetish is quite happy. He's just standing straight, totally naked except for his collar. It's a great photo and I found it on i Honor Her.
My take on the BDSM in Girls with Slingshots
Alright, let me preface this whole semi-rant of mine by saying that I really love the comic Girls With Slingshots. It deals with a lot of things that are relevant to me. Unemployment, coming out, round ladies being sexy and amazing rather than just round, cactuses, lesbian relationships and dildos. The art is great, the characters are surprising and the jokes are funny. I've been following it daily since I stumbled across it about a year ago. I don't expect my comments and thoughts to change the story or to influence the artist in any way, this is a rant for the sake of ranting.
Also, I am not a professional domme. I do not live their lives, I do not want to. I am into bdsm purely for my own enjoyment and happiness, as well as the enjoyment and happiness of my boy.
With that said, and kept in mind, the new story line, involving Clarice who is a librarian/pro domme and Tucker, who finds out about her secret interests, is making me cringe a bit.
"To answer a common question, no, I’ve never had hands-on (hah) experience with the BDSM lifestyle. But I’ve done an ass-ton of research at this point, entirely from those who live in the lifestyle, both subs and doms, including two awesome friends of mine who used to run a BDSM bed & breakfast. Yes, seriously.
So, to those of you in the lifestyle, I’m happy to hear your thoughts if I’m doing something completely wrong! I don’t want to blatantly misrepresent your culture. Otherwise, please let your imagination run wild, and remember that Clarice and the rest of the cast live in a fantasy world.
A fantasy world with a talking cactus and the ghost of a stillborn kitten."
I realize that this is a fantasy world and that perhaps bdsm folk in this world are also pro dommes and make money at what they enjoy... but as someone who lives in the real world of bdsm, I can rant.
My problem with what has been said here is that she's talking about those of us who live this lifestyle. '...entirely from those who live in the lifestyle...' '...to those of you in the lifestyle...' when I consider pro dommes to be outside of the lifestyle/community. For the most part, bdsm is something they do for work, which means they don't generally take their play outside of work. They don't play by the same rules, nor do they have the same expectations as most kinky folk. There are always exceptions, of course.
As someone who is putting on a show, as well as someone who's being blackmailed into this (read the comic to understand the background), I can see why Clarice is pissed off. It makes for a good show and she's actually feeling that way too. But he is so shiny and new that he squeaks. If this were the real world, I'd say she should be giving him the safeword, not waiting for him to ask. So far, he doesn't seem terribly consenting, and to me, bdsm is all about consent. That's really all that separates it from abuse.
It's always possible he's playing the victim, which a lot of bottoms do (that way they don't actually want it, you've forced them into it, therefore it's okay, since they feel guilty for wanting 'naughty' things), but it's difficult to tell and non-consensual play is never a good idea.
The one thing that has upset me the most about this is the anger that Clarice is showing here. Some top folk like to feign anger when they play, but Clarice seems to have genuine (if fictional) anger. Playing angry is a really good way for someone to get hurt. There is already the possible issue of top space turning angry or violent, adding anger or hurt to that is like adding dynamite to a fire.
Some people might say that in these panels, Tucker should speak up, should tell her to go slower or that he isn't interested in bondage, or whatever it is that he needs to say. Though I agree, I think he should speak up, I also think that she should stop and listen and actually have a consensual arrangement going on. She is just as much at fault, if not more so, for any harm that may occur.
Also, before a scene it is customary to negotiate. I realize that this is a comic and things get skipped, but this is one of the things that drives me crazy about people who are new to bdsm and coming out to the scene.
They expect that things will be the way they are in porn or cartoons or comics or fantasy novels. I've had strangers ask me to tie them up and beat them. I've had them ask me if they have to submit if they come to a party. I've had them ask me to swing with them, to have sex with them, to dominate them, to submit to them and if I'll let them borrow my wife. The answer to all these questions has been no. Which has surprised them, every time. The bdsm scene is full of real people in real relationships and generally, it is not okay to ask such an intimate question without getting to know if they're taken, if they're into that or how they identify. (PS- Asking a sadist if she'll submit to you is not a good idea.)
Back to negotiation. Before any sort of scene, the people involved usually negotiate, especially if one of them is new. Negotiation usually includes what is okay, what is not okay and what is really not okay. It's customary (and a really good idea) to ask about health problems. If you end up playing hard with someone with a bad back and they can't move tomorrow, shame on you. If you end up playing hard with someone with a bad heart and they end up dying on you, it's a bit worse than shame. One generally asks what has been tried before, what is going on for this scene, if they have another partner, what the limits are and what the safeword(s) are.
No one wants a trip to emergency and having to explain the rope marks or the welts. Our lifestyle, especially the SM part of it, is considered illegal (at least here in Canada) because it's difficult to tell the difference between consensual and non-consensual play.
Again, I think this comes from watching porn and finding your interest in bdsm through fantasy. Calling a dominant, be they male or female, single or otherwise, any sort of honorific before having even spoken to them of playing is highly insulting. The only dominants that I've ever met that would enjoy that are people that I find unsettling. To call someone 'Mistress' (just for example, there are hundreds of titles I could have chosen) is a highly personal thing. You should only call someone Mistress if you are in a relationship with that person and have already spoken about how to address them respectfully.
This goes the other way too. If someone is new on the scene and demands that random strangers call them 'Ma'am' or 'Sir' or whatever, you can tell them no. They can't involve you in their protocol without your consent and that's a serious faux-pas.
Generally, kinksters don't have a formal etiquette when they meet. We're a varied bunch. Some of us are just fetishists, some of us play on the weekends, some of us live it 24/7, some of us are into D/s, some of us are no holds barred SM players. The only rule that I would say exists (or should exist) for the 'lifestyle' or community, is the rule of respect. You do not involve people in play without consent, even if it's as simple as asking someone to call you 'sir' or calling someone 'sir' without asking.
I will update more as more comics are made.
trash - abuse
For a lot of top folk, the idea that bottoms are just to be thrown out after seems to be normal. It's the idea that you don't need a relationship, that you can just pick up anyone new to bdsm, offer to be their 'mentor' and then use and abuse them. I'm quite sick of that.
I feel like I need to warn those who are new to bdsm that older and 'more experienced' people may try to take advantage of their eagerness to learn and have a partner. At the same time, I don't want to scare away those people who are new. I want them to realize that a lot of us are normal people who can be trusted and will help them to learn without expecting sexual favors, etc, in return.
And really, how do you approach someone who's known to be a predator of those new and shiny members of the bdsm groups and tell them to fuck off, we know what they're up to? We're supposed to be a welcoming group and our standards of mentorship and safety can't apply to everyone. Still, I'm sick of seeing new people disappear after the predators have scared them off, or seeing them get hurt after trying a relationship with a predator.
Blind and breathless
Rawr.
From Geeky Vamp.
More
Straight shave
Did I mention that I love the movie Sweeney Todd?
Rape
I happened to get my Kindle to define 'rape' for me, and its definitions bothered me.
"the crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them"
"the abduction of a woman, esp. for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with her"
Now, several things bother me about these definitions. In the first one, the fact that it specifies that rape must be committed by a man. While " The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999) estimated that 91% of U.S. rape victims are female and 9% are male, with 99% of the offenders being male," there is still one percent of rape being carried out by women--that's reported.
The same is true of the second definition--why does rape have to happen to a woman? Just because something is more common doesn't mean that nothing else happens. Take homosexuality. I'm not saying that everything should always try to be about everyone ever, but using very specific words like that isn't necessary. (I've missed blogging).
Here's a gender neutral definition: "an act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person;
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse."
The thing that really bothers me about all those definitions is the use of 'sexual intercourse'. If you ask most straight, vanilla people, (who, last time I checked, are the majority) they will tell you that sexual intercourse is: "heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus."
So, if you only got raped in the ass or mouth, or masturbated on, or anything else...too bad for you.
Now, in a lot of jurisdictions, certain non-sexual intercourse rapes fall under the category of sexual assault. Sexual assault is defined as " assault of a sexual nature on another person," with assault further meaning " a crime of violence against another person". Um...so...rape? Isn't that splitting hairs juuuuuust a little? To me, it goes like this: sexual harassment is if something says something to you: "What are you wearing under that?" "Women can't do _____", whatever. Sexual assault is if someone makes a pass at you, shows you bits of themselves you didn't want to see, but they don't touch you. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as they touch you in a way that YOU consider sexual (I don't give a flying fuck what they think) -- It's rape. This includes kissing, fondling, stroking, patting, squeezing, whatever. If you didn't ask for it, it's rape. A lot of those things are considered by many people to be more intimate than sex.
This brings me to my final definition (not destination):
"The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in its landmark 1998 judgment used a definition of rape which did not use the word 'consent': "a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive.""
This means that even if you give consent, if you give it under any sort of duress, it is still rape. So that if someone convinces you to have sex, through peer pressure, threatening to break up with you, or substances, even if you say 'yes', it is still rape.
It also says 'a physical invasion', which pretty much jives with my 'no-touchee' rule. And they don't mention gender anywhere.
I think that this should become THE ONLY definition of rape that is EVER used ANYWHERE. And no, I cannot stress that enough. How many people would feel so much better about themselves and their loved ones if THIS was the definition of rape that they knew? I can only imagine.
The definition continues to the following inferences:
"Valid consent is also lacking if the victim lacks an actual capacity to give consent, as in the case of a victim who is a child, or who has a mental impairment or developmental disability. Consent can always be withdrawn at any time, so that any further sexual activity after the withdrawal of consent constitutes rape.
The law would invalidate consent in the case of sexual intercourse with a person below the age at which they can legally consent to such relations. (See age of consent.) Such cases are sometimes called statutory rape or "unlawful sexual intercourse", regardless of whether it was consensual or not.
In times gone by and in many countries still today marriage is said to constitute at least an implied consent to sexual intercourse. However, marriage in many countries today is no longer a defense to rape or assault. In some jurisdictions, a person cannot be found guilty of the rape of a spouse, either on the basis of "implied consent" or (in the case of former British colonies) because of a statutory requirement that the intercourse must have been "unlawful" (which is legal nomenclature for outside of wedlock). However, in many of those jurisdictions, it is still possible to bring prosecutions for what is effectively rape by characterizing it as an assault."
Oh, here's another good definition: Sex with a woman, other than the perpetrator's wife, without her consent. No more, "Not tonight, I've got a headache"! Once that ring's on her finger, you can rape her til the cows cum home.
Urination
Many vanilla people and newcomers to BDSM think that being peed on falls under the category of humiliation. That may be true for some people, but certainly not for myself or those I've spoken with about it. I mean, yes, if someone just walked up to me and peed all over me, their nuts would get a one way ticket to the abdominal cavity, but that's not the idea. The idea is that someone you love and/or someone you've negotiated doing this activity with is peeing on you. Taken to the other extreme, I've been told that some people (particularly gay men) view being urinated on as being a gift from the dominant to the submissive. It's not quite that for me, but it is very enjoyable, and a very primal and visceral acknowledgement of ownership and dominance.
Transformation of Pain
So, in BDSM circles, people often ask what the difference is between cutting (a person using a sharp implement on themselves) and being cut.
On the surface, they seem identical, and they have identical physical results--the skin is broken, blood flows.
However, the motivations could not be more different. In my experience, cutting is all about release: when the pain inside becomes so great that NOTHING else is possible. At that point, it isn't a choice, it's a requirement. The trick is not getting to that point. It isn't about causing pain, or the blood, or anything. It's almost like the idea of humors--that the body has a buildup of something that has to be released for healing.
Being cut is very different. It's an understanding between two people who are committed to one another (at least for the duration of the scene), and CANNOT be frantic or desperate. The person doing the cutting must be in control, and the person being cut must be aware enough to monitor how much damage is being done to them, and how much more they can take. It's the difference between a ballet and headbanging in your bedroom. Being cut is also a release, but a different one.
Blindfolding
Found this at Pretty Kinky Things.
Another plane
More beautiful work by Marling.
Aftercare
Art by Raphaella.
Aftercare
Affectionate care and attention following any type of traumatic or mentally challenging event. D/s relationships are engaged with a passion and intensity that are often so strong that they can strip away at the barriers and defenses that we normally use to protect ourselves from exactly those extremes. To 'feel' that intensity means that we are not 'as safe'. To some extent we have stepped across our own thresholds of security and exposed some or all parts of our inner selves to the scrutiny and possible damage of others.
Scening can or may be seen as a compromise between what the submissive is seeking or desiring and how close to achieving those desires the dominant's own fears will allow them to go. This is a stretching in both directions. Both the dominant and the submissive often venture into areas they have never gone before. These areas can test their inner strength and resolve, their will and compassion. To retain personal integrity, or a belief in ourselves, we have to stay within the codes that we live by and believe in. In learning about ourselves we often test these codes to see if they are indeed our codes or codes we have simply adopted by rote at some point along the way.
The road to emerging as a dominant or submissive is filled with these kinds of moral and ethical choices and the contradictions and apparent paradoxes that they present. Reconciling these contradictions and forming true choices of who we are and what lines are inviolate within the self is a process that takes years and perhaps the entirety of our lives to discover fully.
When we expose ourselves to another human being, there is an expressed obligation by both people to refrain from injury or damage, offer solace, nurturing and care until that sense of exposure recedes. We call this period of time 'Aftercare'. Most often we associate this term with the time frame immediately following a scene. However, this term is equally applicable at many other points and times and many times is not associated with BDSM at all. Essentially it is an understood promise that should exist prior to anyone agreeing to engage in any type of relationship. Often it is overlooked or ignored as an 'incidental'. The concentration or focus of many people appears to be on the action events such as any and all forms of BDSM or sexual interaction that may and in many cases will occur as part of the relationship. Minimizing the importance of aftercare is a mistake. Aftercare is a period of necessary recovery. This is a fundamental recovery of the self into a form competent and 'safe' to independently interact with other people.
Some aspects of BDSM trigger responses much like intoxication. The ability of the brain to rationalize or make important or serious decisions may be seriously impaired for a substantial period of time after an event or scene. Scening can and sometimes does summon up long hidden memories, feelings, emotions and traumas that the individual has kept safe behind the barrier wall or mental defense system that during a scene may suddenly no longer exist. We maintain these walls through diverting a portion of our mental energy to them at all times. In periods of low stress this constant trickle of energy is negligible. In periods of high mental activity, the brain often diverts energy towards activities which take precedence. Managing a BDSM scene will often become an activity of such precedencial choice. When this occurs the brain is no longer sustaining the wall and it may simply vanish, exposing what is behind it.
We maintain personal barriers and walls of defense to protect ourselves from things we know but perhaps have serious trouble dealing with. An example of this would be an automobile accident. Some portion of the brain does 'know' and fully experienced all that occurred during the accident or 'event'. The extremes of the experience may be so great that a self protective determining factor inside the brain decides that it is 'unhealthy' for the cognizant areas of the brain to experience this event through memory loops over and over again. At that point this determining factor selectively places this event in a 'safe area' or behind one of the brains natural mental barriers or walls.
Should one of these 'events' become exposed then the individual may re-experience the event. It is vital to remember that these hidden events were considered to be potentially damaging when the real event occurred so much so that the brain took active steps to protect the individual from them. Supporting and assuring the person who has re-experienced one of these events that they are 'safe' is profoundly important. The new 'information' may be of a nature that they do have great difficulty coping with it and in some cases they may need good professional assistance from a qualified therapist.
Normal aftercare occurring without such an exposure is often the simple nurturing of one human to another. The support and protection of and from revealed intimacies and aiding and assisting in rebuilding the former protective walls, barriers or defenses. These protective mental measures appear to rebuild naturally as a simple part of how the brain functions and manages over a period of time. That time frame will vary with the individual and with the intensity of the experience itself. Aftercare in its most simple form is just being there with your partner for a sufficient time period that they feel safe and no longer feel the need to cling to you. It is equally important to recognize that aftercare is for both the Dominant and the submissive. If either person leaves too soon then their partner may feel abandonment or loss far exceeding the apparent parameters of the interaction.
It is also important to recognize that aftercare may be a serious factor when a relationship ends and especially when that ending is through the choice of one person and not the other. To some extent it remains the obligation of the person who makes that choice to extend aftercare support in a form agreeable to the person who has not made that choice until they have reached a point where they feel emotionally less devastated or more able to cope with the changed aspects of their life. In these days of acrimonious breakups it is common to act without dignity or respect for yourself and for the person whom you have engaged in a serious relationship with. This type of attack damages everyone involved and is seldom decent but most often reflects cowardly and selfish actions.
Consent with unexpected consequences
I'm glad I have an imagination. Non-consent is only fun when it's consensual.
breath-play poetry
I tied a ribbon ‘round your neck
And then I pulled it tight
Straining against the stretch of the satin
Listening to you gasp
With each love-struck tug
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)