Thursday, 5 April 2018

When it's soooo not about your dick it actually is -- on the paradox of denial


I get exasperated by a common confusion between what I see as ''meta'' and what I see as ''in-dynamics'', by the confusion between the ''play'' and the ''reality' (these terms are in quotes on purpose). This is very clear when talking about ''punishment'' -- that's why I dislike the term ''corporal punishment'' and prefer ''impact play'', for example. I understand that in some dynamics people like to play at punishment (the whole bad boy/bad girl thing) and that's absolutely fine if that's what gets your rocks off.

It is also common when talking about denial and chastity. ''This is not about your pleasure'' or ''this is not about your dick'' gets bandied about a lot. I do it myself. But in this one, the distinction between play and real between in-dynamics and meta is even more commonly ignored and it sometimes drives me up the wall.

So let's pick this one apart.

''This is not about your pleasure'' or ''this is not about your dick''  is a fetish fantasy, an aspect of role play -- rooted in the fact that masochistic pleasure lies in masochist's displeasure and that submissive pleasure often has masochistic notes, or ones of sacrifice and self-denial. So far so good, right?

But see this one: it's not about his pleasure so he needs to be denied, unfucked, locked up and forbidden to masturbate? For, for the lack of a better word, real?

C'mon. If it wasn't really about the sub then his (or her, for that matter) orgasm or lack of it wouldn't concern the dom at all. By making a point of the denial we focus on the sub -- on their pleasure-in-denial/frustration. A dom who forbids her sub to come, or masturbate, makes it obviously as much about him as about herself, and thus (assuming consensual dynamic) about his experience.

Do I like denial? Sure. I love it, as something I inflict on my lover. I enjoy it for the whimpers and the begging and other various aspects of eroticised desperation. I enjoy the raw lust it brings to the surface. I enjoy controlling a playmate's access to his dick because it's fun for all those reasons but also -- obviously -- because I like dick and I like playing with dick. NOT, FFS, because I'm not interested in it.

On the other hand, if I want my partner -- especially a vanilla partner who doesn't enjoy denial or any overt dominance -- to actually focus exclusively on my pleasure  with actual disregard for his dick, I obviously won't bother with any of the denial or chastity shtick.

Instead, we'll probably fuck in one or another way, he'll come and then he'll see to my needs and wants. The bonus is that once he's come, he really isn't thinking about his dick, he really is focusing solely on my pleasure. Obviously, doing it in the refraction/slump period isn't that much fun for him, but then at that point it's not about his fun (whether that fun would consist in straightforward pleasure or inverted pleasure-via-frustration).

So if the sex is to be really (on the meta level) not about his dick, there is no need to bother monitoring and controlling said dick. For a woman who doesn't enjoy making it about his dick, either via exercising the control or inflicting the pain of frustration, active orgasm denial would be, surely, a chore. One might as well shrug it off and let him come as much as he wants, as long as he complies otherwise, which he might for all kinds of reasons, maybe because he's submissive who enjoys service, maybe because he likes to reciprocate and share pleasure in a completely vanilla way. 

The way I see it, a dom does exercise in-dynamic control using chastity and denial but that's because she actually gives the sub the denial and associated attention to his pleasure-in-frustration and yes, attention to his - controlled but very much in-focus - dick. Not because she takes anything away from him for real.

That's why the real ''it's not about your pleasure'' active male sexual service is rare to nonexistent in remote/virtual play. It's not really possible, because by the nature of the medium, a virtual lover cannot easily actively pleasure a remote dom. The focus is always on what can be done to the sub partner. 

That is, unless we are talking about a very old fashioned text-based what used to be called cybersex (remember that?). I recall one encounter with an old friend and sometime-lover few months ago, a very enjoyable old-fashioned fantasy sexting exchange which did feel close to what I'm talking about. 

He was just there, co-creating my fantasy, participating and responding in ways he knew I'd enjoy, helping me get off (twice), giving to me his fantasy self. I didn't even know (and I still don't) if he was aroused, masturbating with me, whether he actually came or not. 

It's not that I actively wanted him not to enjoy it, it's that it didn't matter if he did. It really wasn't about his dick. 


1 comment: