Consent and sensibility

Having solved the problems of world hunger, universal medical care, and corrupt politicians, it’s good to know that some people still have enough energy to tackle the really important issues of whether or not “enforced” chastity is an actuality, whether or not one needs a device, and what devices are serious enough for consideration.

At the moment, this argument discussion is taking place over on Sarah’s Male Chastity Blog, although this is really just another instance of the discussions that take place on some group or forum just about every freaking month. It’s kind of like the kudzu of the kinky internet; as soon as you think it’s gone, it pops up somewhere else.

So, let’s review a few things. As I’ve said a bazillion times, chastity devices are sex toys, plain and simple. Just like handcuffs, rope, or other restraints, they are equipment to enhance sexual, or more accurately, erotic enjoyment.  This is not a paradox; except for extremely rare circumstances, people buy chastity devices in order to engage in erotic control scenes. Yes, the scenes may play out over long periods — weeks or months — but the essence of the play is erotic control of one’s sexuality.

Yeah, yeah, I know that some of you are ready to get on a soapbox about how it has changed your relationship, given you focus, made you a better partner, blah, blah, blah. Well, I call “bullshit” on that entire concept; what you’re descibing is not the magical effect of the device anymore than Dumbo’s crow feather gave him magical flying powers (sorry, when you have kids, these kinds of analogies come to mind). Rather, I suspect that you, yourself have become more focused, a better parter, etc., because you’re enjoying the attention and you’re reciprocating in a way that fits the paradigm you’ve set for yourself (actually, since we don’t live in a social vacuum, that other people around the internet have set for you). You want to call the device a symbol of your new life? Hey, great — that’s exactly what those freaking wedding bands do. How well was that working for you?

So, does that mean that chastity devices are toys? Well, that’s a bit more complicated, so to avoid certain emotional connotations, I’m going to call them “equipment”. This makes more sense because that’s how we usually refer to other kink-oriented items; the word “toy”, while having a connotation as being something used for fun, also conveys an image of something that’s not intended for serious usage (fsv of “serious”). Hence, the snobbery of those people who sneer at anything made of plastic, who are in turn frowned on by those espousing the use of anything less than a full stainless steel Tollyboy (or whatever) belt, who are then dismissed as amateurs by those who have spent months of their salary (and months of fitting time) to own custom Latowski metal underwear.

And of course, all of the above people are dissed by the domlier/subbier than thou types who claim that nobody should even need a device, they should simply develop the willpower to do as they are told.

A pox on all of ye, I say.

Those of us who enjoy using chastity devices do so because it takes willpower out of the equation entirely. Does Mrs. Edge tie a ribbon around my cock to remind me that it’s her property? No. “Oh, screw that,” she says. “I want to make sure you don’t even have the temptation, let alone the opportunity.” I believe that this sums up the concept rather well; for us, the kink is about her control, not mine. I believe that most other people into using chastity devices have a similar mindset.

Having eradicated the kudzu set to rest the idea that it’s perfectly okay to use devices, let’s move on to the idea that chastity can be “enforced”.

It can’t.

That is, it can’t in the sense that between consenting adults, nothing can be enforced without some willing participation. There are two aspects to this, the emotional/relationship aspect, and the pratical/physical aspect. Let’s tackle the latter because it’s easier.

Okay, I want everybody to sit down and take a deep breath. Most of you have heard this, but not all of you were listening, so it may come as a shock.

There is no such thing as an inescapable chastity device.

I want you to trust Doctor Tom on this one. I have been working with tools since I was a child. I own an entire machine shop. There is no metal that can not be cut, nor any lock that can not be defeated by the proper application of time, effort, and money. Stainless steel? Feh, I cut that in my garage. Titanium? Don’t make me laugh. Carbonite? Get real, that’s only in Star Wars.

Lock shackles can be cut with bolt cutters. Locks with hidden shackles can be drilled out. And there are very few designs that can not be defeated with a Dremel and a couple of grinding discs. Full belts with metal chains? You can cut the chains and wriggle the belt off. Without chains? They have thin sheet metal cutters that you can slide in along your waistband. High-end “trapped ball” devices like the Gerecke or Steelwerkz? A little tougher because you’ve got to work close to sensitive skin, but still doable with a steady hand and the proper tools. Lori’s and other devices that utilize a PA piercing? The area holding the lock itself is thin, and easily accessible with a small jeweler’s saw. And obviously, plastic devices can be cut or broken.

Now, this is the heart of the argument: If any device can be cut apart, then they’re worthless, right?

No. This is where the emotional/relationship aspect comes into play.

Having established that you can’t be locked up without your consent, let’s examine what that consent entails. In any relationship, and especially in a D/s relationship, we take on roles that match up to some script that we have running in our minds. When there is a large disparity between the script and our real life, we become depressed or restless — a symptom of our unhappiness. For an example, pick any one of the dozens of FLR blogs in which the men have been trying for months or years to convince their wives to “take charge” in some way. Those men who resort to “stealth submission” are, in some respects, trying to fit that script to their real life scenarios, and not feeling especially successful.

For the men who somehow manage to talk to their partners about chastity and orgasm denial, a lot of them write about their frustration when their wives or partners lock them up for a few days, then leave the keys in plain sight, or forget to lock them back up again, or pretty much ignore the entire situation. Message boards are filled with “How do I get my wife to…” questions. Consent isn’t a problem in these cases, except on the other side; i.e., men who want their partners to consent to some erotic sexual control.

But for those who actually have partners that want to play along, there is usually have a period in which the man gets accustomed to wearing the device for several hours or days at a time, and once broken in, the play starts. Sometimes they use a point system, sometimes it’s random numbers (dice games, darts, lotto picks), or sometimes it’s a pre-determined number of days. Some guys underestimate their ability to hold out, and begin begging for some kind of release. When they do this, are they doing so because they aren’t able to break the cage and have an orgasm? Of course not. This is simply part of the play itself. Chastity enthusiasts want to feel the loss of control, even if it’s illusory, because this meshes with the script in their heads. That’s why “enforced” chastity is really a scene. It’s extended, and it’s not situationally dependent (e.g., it doesn’t have to be played in a dungeon, or only on a weekend), but it’s still a scene, and a scene requires some kind of consent.

In these scenes, the devices have several purposes. Ostensibly, they are to prevent the men from taking control of their penis, presumably through masturbation. In some cases, partners have discovered that the device helps to ease their own feelings of guilt when they don’t feel like having sex; some women say that they would like a massage or some physical attention, and often feel like their partners keep trying to turn those circumstances into an opportunity for sex; the devices can remove the sense of responsibility (“I’m sorry, honey, but the two weeks aren’t up yet.”). Again, an extremely frustrated man can head down to his basement and cut the cage off to masturbate. But they don’t. It’s not because the cage is unbreakable, it’s because so far real life isn’t running too far off course from that internal script.

Yes, some men say that it’s because of their devotion, but that sense of devotion itself comes from that internal script. In some paradigms, they are bold, but subservient knights, willing to put up with personal trials to win the hand our their princess. In others, they are happy to see the script begin to modify itself (“Be careful what you wish for, you might get it” seems to be their motto). There are other paradigms, but the important point is that they all work as long as real life somewhat matches up to their script.

For some — I suspect most — men, part of that script does entail an inescapable device. This is why some people spend so much time convincing themselves that this or that modification will make their device foolproof. I can personally attest to having spent hours working out ways to improve my CB3000 resistance to pulling out. Some men will take it a step farther and get a piercing (as did I, although it didn’t work out well). The idea is as I wrote above: we want the temptation completely removed, we want to feel a loss of control, even if we temporarily desire otherwise at times.

So, if you have to consent to wearing a device, and if a device can be broken or cut off, how does that give you a situation that removes all control?

It doesn’t, of course. This is where our internal script has to depend upon the willing suspension of disbelief, just as any other Hollywood movie or Barbara Cartland novel does.

If your script considers your personal sense of responsibility to weigh as heavily as the need for a secure device, then your WSD allows you to wear, say, a CB3000, even though you know you could pull out and masturbate in the shower if the pressure gets to be too much to handle. On the other hand, if your script (or your partner’s) calls more heavily for a true loss of control, and you’re unwilling to pretend, then you start looking for something more secure. Perhaps you add a KSD to your device. Or perhaps you get a piercing. Or perhaps you do as so many chastity enthusiasts do — go from device to device, always looking for something that’s just a little bit better than the last.

This is why some smarmy people talk about deviceless chastity; in their internal script, they focus on giving control over to their partners through developing their own self-control, and willingness to forgo temptation. In their scripts, overcoming such trials adds to their sense of self-worth. Similarly, those people who are more serious about their desire for actual loss of control will seek more “serious” devices because it adds to the believability of the script. This is why fantasies of unbreakable, uncuttable carbon-diamond unobtainium devices are so common — a lot of people enjoy the idea of loss of control. This isn’t so surprising when you consider that in other types of scenes, whippings, piercings, cuttings, and other types of sensation play are often accompanied by some kind of restraint. By the way, this points up the reason that the deviceless crowd is so annoying — they dont’ seem to understand that there is a huge disparity in the internal scripts that we like to play out.

I should point out that in addition to using chastity devices, some people choose to enhance their sense of loss of control by using some kind of a contract. True, it’s not legally enforceable, but that’s beside the point. The contracts usually have clauses and stipulations as to such things as the frequency of orgasm (thereby giving some feeling of safety for men who might not be sure how well they will deal with the denial), and consequences for contrived infractions such as begging for an early release, or “unauthorized” orgasms (via an unsecured device, or for those occasions when their partner fails to lock them back in). Again, the contracts are just a way to add some realism to the script, by reinforcing the idea of relinquishing control.

So, the paradoxical question arises: Can we consent to a loss of control within a relationship?

On one level, I don’t see how that’s possible. One’s willingness to relinquish control is only as strong as one’s desire to continue following (or lightly editing) their internal script. As Sarah points out, if her husband decided that he wanted out, he could either physically overpower her for the key, or head into the garage to cut the device off. However, the consequences for this would probably mean that Sarah would be angry or disappointed, and might not be willing to engage in such play again. If he decided that he could live with those consequences, then there is really nothing stopping him from ending the game unilaterally.

So, regard for the consequences is one of the (and probably the biggest) reasons that chastity can be “enforced.” This is actually a point that reinforces the believability factor with the stainless steel devices and the full belts; the consequences for cutting or breaking one of those affects not only one’s relationship, but also becomes very expensive as the wearer thinks about breaking a device that cost hundreds or possibly a couple of thousand dollars.

So,  any degree of enforcement comes down to a regard for the consequences of breaking the agreement (contract, tacit, or otherwise). Now, can we all get back to enjoying our kink, and stop arguing about it?

About Tom Allen

The Grey Geezer Dauntless defender of, um, something that needed dauntless defending. Dammit, I can't read this script without my glasses. Hey, you kids, get off my damn lawn!
This entry was posted in Birdlock, CB2000, CB3000, CB6000, chastity, Chastity & Orgasm Denial, Chastity Devices, male chastity, orgasm control, orgasm denial and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to Consent and sensibility

  1. Sarah says:

    But Tom, what about those men who wake up to find their women have put them in an inescapable belt while they were asleep and have been kept in them 24/7/365 for the last 931 years while their wives have had 97 children by 32 different fathers?

    What about them, huh?

    You KNOW they’re out there because I’ve read their illiterate posts on the Internet!

    I suppose you’re going to tell me it’s all made up, aren’t you?!

    Sarah.

  2. nursemyra says:

    They must be very heavy sleepers 😉

  3. Billus says:

    Those lucky bastards!

    But seriously, do you think there’s some sort of group mind-shift going on? It seems that a year or two ago, there was very little of this sort of discussion online. Things seemed to be more or less rolling along with the “I’m a locked fucktoy/houseboy and never happier” group leading the way. Now, as noted, everywhere you look there are talking points regarding chastity as something ‘vanilla’ couples can engage in, and nobody has to do extra chores! A redefinition of the word “submissive” seems to be taking place, and happily, it’s not the same thing to all people. Some of the old guard seem upset by that, but there are still people who refuse to see the word “gay” as anything other than “happy”.

    It’s like all at once, the idea of the word defining the concept has been turned on its head. Chastity, submission and kink in general appear to be on the path to being ideas acceptable to larger segments of the population, and less likely to be hushed up (as the husband furtively orders ‘sexual aids’). People like Sarah and Thumper and others are saying, “Here’s MY definition of what these words mean to us, and how we use them, and nuts to anybody else”. People who do not consider themselves kinky at all using CB-3000’s in private. It’s a welcome sea-change.

    • Tom Allen says:

      It seems that a year or two ago, there was very little of this sort of discussion online.

      :coff coff:
      Apparently I’ve been a still, small voice.

    • Billus says:

      Tom, even back then your stories were the real draw of this forum. Certainly over time this site is more about real-life consensual kink play than the fantasies, even if your story viewpoint was more ‘real’ than the usual wank fodder.

      Heck, we even read your fitness posts. All of them.

  4. “So, the paradoxical question arises: Can we consent to a loss of control within a relationship?”

    As I see it, this question is not a paradox, this question is a trap. You may recognise this trap in its more famous guise from Groucho Marx when he asked:

    “So tell me sir, when did you stop beating your wife?”

    I think your question is a trap because it contains the unsupported assumption that loss of control is a consentable event. As I understand it, consent is not about other people’s actions, it’s about permission for other people to act in ways which impact on us. We can consent to yield control within a relationship, certainly. But I disagree that we can consent to lose it.

    I think that what is outside our jurisdiction is also outside the realm of our consent. And contrariwise what begins within our jurisdiction generally remains within our jurisdiction, and therefore our own consent is always ours. So I think the answer to your question is moot because I disagree that relinquishing consent is possible.

    As you said, you don’t see how consenting to loss of control is possible, and I agree that it isn’t. Whether somebody else chooses to respect that is another matter entirely.

    I’m fine with somebody getting a boner from pretending they or their partner(s) have no power in their relationship. And because I agree that free speech only has value if all dissenting parties have a voice, I’m only slightly less fine with somebody getting a boner from dictating their loss-of-control religion to everybody else.

    But when somebody gets a boner from insisting that we play too by agreeing with them, then that’s an attempt to involve unconsenting parties and I veto the okayness of that.

    Ok, done now. 🙂

  5. Tom Allen says:

    I think your question is a trap because it contains the unsupported assumption that loss of control is a consentable event.

    And that’s precisely my point – I think that most people *do* make that assumption without giving it much more thought; however that’s part of the WSD that they need in order to have their internal script mesh with the reality of the situation.

    Newly locked men love to drop into web boards proclaiming “I’ve been locked into my device, and she told me it would be at least a month before she lets me out; Oh noes, I wonder if I can handle it?” What they want to hear is “Oh, you poor thing,” or “Buck up, it’ll be over before you know it,” or “Aye, but SHE is in charge now, and you’re at her whim and mercy,” because that plays along with the script. Generally, though, they get ticked off when some smarmy wiseass tells them “Oh, just cut the cheap lock or break the plastic, it’s only a toy, blah, blah, blah.”

    So I think the answer to your question is moot because I disagree that relinquishing consent is possible.

    And this is why you often see “reasoning” like “I can’t cut it off because she has pictures of me in frillies and she would show them to my boss/family/golf club,” or “She made me sign an agreement that would take all of my money if I tried to leave her, so you can see that I’m stuck in this belt.” Never mind that such assertions are fantasy, the underlying assumption is that emotional or financial blackmail is supposed to keep them in line. That is *still* not consent because it is still their own regard for the consequences that factors into their decision.

    I’m fine with somebody getting a boner from pretending they or their partner(s) have no power in their relationship.

    As long as we all agree that they are pretending, and I’m free to ignore them if I choose. This goes back to something I write a few years ago (can’t find it now) that it’s perfectly fine to write a story and say that it’s fiction. I do it all the time – my stories are clearly labeled as fiction and linked in a section called “The Stories.” People seem to enjoy reading them, even though they are, as I’ve said, fiction. So, it doesn’t make sense to try to draw everyone else into your script by pretending it’s real.

    • Sarah says:

      One thing I find irksome when they do this is they’re presenting it as factual and tacit advice for newbies to the scene. This is one problem I had when I came into it.

      John had this idea he presented to me, he explained it carefully and couched it all in terms of how it would benefit ME, and all that… but when I go online to research it with him and by myself, I have this utter bullshit in my face that at the time scared the bejesus out of me.

      John had introduced this as a loving kink which would bring us closer, spice up out sex life (it wasn’t bad, but now it’s magnificent), and be a bit of fun all round. But then I was reading accounts of what is to me bordering on systematic abuse. And even if it’s consensual abuse, it’s not somethng I want any part of in my relationship with John. I can’t even administer simple corporal punishment without feeling awful, even though he’s perfectly OK with (and probably keen on) the idea.

      Free speech ensures they have the right to present this bullshit as fact if they like; but it also ensures rational and level headed men and women call “bulllshit” on it if we choose.

      Male chastity is always consensual, as is any kind of male submission. If people really want to get a comparison with REAL non-consensual domination, go to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan or Saudi as a woman and see how they treat you.

      That’s REAL non-consensual domination. See how you like it; and then see what happens when you say “I’ve had enough now, let’s stop”.

      Then come back and tell us your man is “forced” into chastity (if you can actually get out of the country, that is).

      Sarah.

    • “Newly locked men love to drop into web boards proclaiming “[…] she told me it would be at least a month before she lets me out; Oh noes, I wonder if I can handle it?” What they want to hear is “Oh, you poor thing,” […] or “Aye, but SHE is in charge now, and you’re at her whim and mercy,” because that plays along with the script. Generally, though, they get ticked off when some smarmy wiseass tells them “Oh, just cut the cheap lock or break the plastic” […] this is why you often see “reasoning” like “I can’t cut it off because she has pictures of me in frillies and she would show them to my boss/family/golf club,” […] Never mind that such assertions are fantasy”

      And this was exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned attempts to get unconsenting parties to play along. Giving out to those who decline to play along and who never consented to do so is abusive, and that is the primary objection I have to those presenting fantasy as if it were fact.

      I never thought of these scenarios as a script before but you’re right, that’s exactly what it is. Thank you for making that idea all nice and clear for me. 🙂

  6. Tom Allen says:

    but when I go online to research it with him and by myself, I have this utter bullshit in my face that at the time scared the bejesus out of me.

    Sarah, can you talk about what kind of stuff you found scary, and why? Mrs. Edge had similar issues years ago which impacted her ability to explore anything for quite some time. I think something about that could be helpful and instructive.

    • Sarah says:

      Well… for instance the dressing up as a sissy-maid and looking like some awful caricature out of Alice in Wonderland?

      It was hard to detangle that kind of thing, which as you know is so commonly touted on the forums, from the simple, basic and fundamental issue of controlling John’s orgasms. For a while, at the back of my mind was the niggling question, “is this where it’s all leading?”

      I had the same queasiness when I read all the tales about cuckolding, and the “humilliation” aspect, the “worthless worm” stuff.

      Why would I want to treat John like that? I wouldn’t even do it in private, let alone in public (you know, the “we went to a bar and my wife’s new lover had her sitting on his knee playing with her tits while he and his friends sent me to buy drinks” stories you read).

      I can easily imagine if some other guy and his friends tried to “humiliate” John like that, they’d end up in hospital… then he’d take me home and fuck me blind, lol. 🙂

      The John I had always known and fell in love with was a tough red-blooded alpha male who’s kind to animals, soft as putty where it counts, and is a real old-fashioned Gentlemen with an indefinable air of danger and savagery about him… that’s a real turn on for me, knowing I’m that close to a ferocious, deadly beast but perfectly safe from him.

      But when this all came out and I looked on the forums, there I was thinking, “shit… is it all a sham? Has John been hiding some awful secret? Is my ‘James Bond’ more of a ‘Quentin Crisp’?”

      As it happens my fears were groundless and it’s just another amazing kink which has taken our sex-life and entire relationship to heights of pleasure and ecstacy I barely dreamed were possible.

      So much misinformation out there it’s almost criminal.

      Sarah.

  7. Sarah, thank you, I was interested to read your itemised list of what you found scary. I’m still not clear on why those things scared you though. When I was first looking at that stuff, my eyes just slid past the stuff I thought didn’t apply to me.

    If you’d be so kind as to explain I’m really interested to know, what was scary about them for you? What did you think was going to happen?

    Best regards, Lubyanka.

    • Sarah says:

      I didn’t necessarily think anything was going to happen, and the behaviours themselves didn’t and don’t scare me. What I found scary was the effect it could have on my hitherto happy relationship.

      The problem I had was male chastity, if you trawl the forums, seems to be more about things which really don’t appeal to me (and which we all now know are nothing to do with male chastiy per se).

      My concern was that John would be wanting to engage and involve me in behaviours I have no interest in and would find distasteful in the context of my own relationship.

      Sarah.

  8. Thank you Sarah, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question.

    From what you said, it sounds like the information itself wasn’t the source of the scariness, but your concerns about hitherto unknown factors making a surprise unscheduled appearance and impacting unpleasantly on your relationship, is that right?

    Best regards, Lubyanka.

    • Tom Allen says:

      I think that women who have only associated femdom D/s play with with “You pathetic worm” stereotypes have a difficult time because they suddenly think that their 200 pound, ex-footballer husband wants to wear a french maid uniform. There’s a mental disconnect because the behaviors seem so at odds with each other. I don’t think that there’s an exact counterpart when the roles are reversed.

      Of course, since most men simply want kinky play and *don’t* want to wear a dress, they then have to help to overcome years of training by the mass media, a task for which most men aren’t prepared.

    • Sarah says:

      Mostly, yes, Lubyanka.

      Not only would that behaviour have been unecological, to put it in NLP terms, but it would also have been a massive cognitive dissonance similar (I imagine) to putting your hands down a gorgeous girl’s panties only to find she’s a plumber named Barry from Mansfield… and “she” now has a hard-on.

      The information itself is neutral: I don’t care what consenting adults to with and to each other. It’s not my business and I’m fairly confident there’s no ultiamte source of moral authority sitting up there on a cloud keeping tally.

      Sarah.

  9. Grey says:

    What did appeal to me, and anyone I would want to delve into this realm by way of Google, was Sarah’s description of male chastity as ‘vanilla male chastity’. Beyond that is the scary stuff that really would frighten off the casual curious women… the ‘hard kink’ that scares me!

    • Sarah says:

      Exactly, Grey.

      I bet a pound to a penny many women have been scared right off the whole idea from the outset and have so missed out (along with their husbands and lovers) on a lot of fun.

      As we bandied about the other day: perhaps it’s time for male chastity to become mainstream.

      Sarah.

  10. Joe says:

    Wow. Talk about the fun marshals that found their voices. This type of defining a kink for everyone else is exactly what you all are accusing everyone else of doing. A dress is a scary thing, indeed.

    Just because you guys all try to agree with each other so you can define this kink in such a way that it is acceptable for you (vanilla) doesn’t make anything you are saying right for everyone else or even correct. Do you all really take yourselves this seriously in real life? Does the rest of your lives have to be this absolutely defined for you as well?

    Quit trying to make it so complicated and so defined. You are running the risk of defining all of the fun out of it for yourselves and everyone else. I know, let’s write a book about it and we can have no dresses and no spanking (do normal people even do that?) and we will have Tom write the intro explaining to everyone who reads the book that “vanilla” chastity is ok and strong men like John are not sissies because they don’t do the kind of sick stuff that scares Sarah.

    Next, I can’t believe you all are even trying to debate if their is anything about chastity that can be forced or non-consenting. Do you really have to spend all of this space constructing these arguments? Isn’t it obvious that everyone (but you) knows (already) that this is just part of the game and it is fun for some people to apparently believe that it is forced or nonconsensual? You are missing the bigger picture that this is all just a kink (force me-control me) that some people apparently like to play.

    For example, there are people that live as master and slave. Their relationship revolves around this concept. If, it is safe and sane then, I don’t care if that is what they want to do. But, I’m not going to debate if real slavery exists in Western society. If, they want to come on forums and write about how real it is, I don’t care. I don’t feel like they are despicably try to involve me in their kink. This is cyberspace. This isn’t real. You are debating concepts that are part of a fantasy as if it were real. And, you are doing it with cyberfriends in cyberspace. How weird is that?

    I also find it amusing that you spend all this time deconstructing the permanence of different types of chastity devices. It is amusing that you need to pontificate the fact that no chastity belt is inescapable. I had no idea that there existed so many men and supposed women on these forums with so much metal shop experience. And, it misses the point that some people are more turned on the more control they feel or receive.

    For example, and back to my master-slave model. Let’s say, the woman is “forced” to wear a plastic collar with a lock on it and she is told she can’t remove it because she is a slave. I can imagine she would say that she is made to wear a collar by her master. Cool. Next, her master finds a metal collar and hangs a lock on it. She is now double freaky horny because it is made of all real metal and short of bolt cutters she really can’t take it off. Her fantasy is even more real. Next, her master finds a thick metal collar that incorporates a shackle around the lock and short of cutting her own neck off, this one seems real. Her master tells her that she is his slave and she will never be able to remove the collar. He clicks the lock shut and she multiple orgasms right on the spot! Why, because it is more real and this is the first collar that she probably can’t get off short of buying some special tool or going to the fire station.

    So, do we debate the obvious about how the collar really isn’t real because there is no such thing as an inescapable collar and she isn’t really wearing the collar without her consent and that she could simple go down into their metal shop and cut it off and in some existential reality she really would be just as much his slave if she simply used that stupid PVC collar she wore last Halloween?

    No. This is all a very hot fantasy. It isn’t real. Why would be have a serious debate about pretend?

    • Leslie says:

      No need to get your panties (or man-panties) in a bunch.

      I don’t believe that either of the bloggers ever declared their particular brand of chastity to be the One True Way. But, what’s wrong with preferring a more vanilla-flavored variety?

      It’s not like there’s any lack of caged sissy maids prancing around the blogosphere.

    • Tom Allen says:

      This type of defining a kink for everyone else is exactly what you all are accusing everyone else of doing

      Well, actually, I think that you’ve got this totally backward. What I’ve been trying to say for the last several years (in one form or another) is that the dominant (heh) paradigms – indeed, the most common stereotypes – for male submissive play is the “worthless worm” or the “sissy maid.” There doesn’t seem to be any good model for emphasizing strong, “manly” submission. Hell, even that expression itself sounds like a paradox; how can you be manly *and* submissive? It’s like jumbo shrimp, right?

      And within the chastity community, there is a long history of regarding bigger and more secure belts as being more “serious” and therefore, more hawt. But your own example about the collar illustrates what I’ve been saying: the collar *can* be removed, but the increased expense and difficulty adds to one’s internal script. That’s all fine with me, but please, folks, let’s realize that it’s all just a script and that it’s no more real than playing D&D with your game group.

      Quit trying to make it so complicated and so defined. You are running the risk of defining all of the fun out of it for yourselves and everyone else.

      Whoa, have you ever seen the Gor enthusiasts? Now, *that* crowd makes it overly complicated. All those rules, special names, dozens of arcane protcols… to me, *that* sucks the fun right out of the play. I’m not trying to define anything, I’m trying to *open up* the definitions by breaking down the established paradigms and showing how accessible this play actually can be.

      You are missing the bigger picture that this is all just a kink (force me-control me) that some people apparently like to play.

      No, I don’t think I’m missing anything. In fact, over the years I’ve seen several dozen men in forums and blogs write out scenes, posts, and stories as if they were real situations. I’ve seen people taken in by them (as I was a few times at first). Again, if you have a hot fantasy, write ti out. But leading people on as if it were real is dishonest.

      In fact, not only is it dishonest, it’s in some respects harmful. I’ve said all along that there are few places for newbs to get good, useful information about chastity and OD. Most of the web boards are populated by wanna-be sissy maids, by men who want you to think that they are forced cuckolds, or by men who are not partnered, but who have no qualms about making rather unhelpful suggestions. This, in fact, is exactly what Sarah was talking about.

      I’m trying to help alleviate this situation by, in some small way, offering a safe and sane place where people (mainly vanilla-oriented newbs) can read, ask questions, and learn.

  11. Sarah says:

    Joe, welcome to the debate.

    Nice to see you expend so much effort on something you apparently deem pointless and even unreal.

    I’m curious to know… why write 760+ words telling us not to debate something you think isn’t worth debating? If it’s all pointless, why comment on it at all?

    Your choice, of course.

    I think there’s a good reason for debating this, because it’s apparent more than one woman who’s had male chastity suggested to her by her husband or lover has investigated the subject only to be given a false impression of what it necessarily involves.

    In other words, some women who’d be up for a bit of kink are not up for the dressing up as French Maids (btw, you’re the only person who’s described that as “sick”… most revealing).

    I also don’t see anyone defining anything. On the contrary, I, at least, have gone to great lengths to make it clear what works for us works for us and I’m sick of people telling me what to do and how to do it.

    Of course, no one makes you read any of this; and the day I need your permission or approval to write it, I’ll ask for it.

    Sarah.

  12. Luka says:

    While I do not share this kink, Tom, I enjoy the arguing about it. I would be terribly bored if it did stop.

  13. Joe says:

    Sarah, thank you for the kind welcome.

    But, you missed my point. Debating and and trying to define what amounts to fantasy is absurd. Pointing it out to you is not.

    “I also don’t see anyone defining anything. On the contrary, I, at least, have gone to great lengths to make it clear what works for us works for us and I’m sick of people telling me what to do and how to do it. -Sarah

    Ok, then stop trying to tell other people how it is. My God, you are going to even write a “guide” about it so everyone can get it right according to you.

    • Tom Allen says:

      Ok, then stop trying to tell other people how it is. My God, you are going to even write a “guide” about it so everyone can get it right according to you.

      You missed the point, and I suspect you did so deliberately. Sarah’s floating an idea about writing a book not to pass along *her* way to get it right. Rather, it’s a way to pass along information that isn’t otherwise very common on the internet.

      Look, Jo, we aren’t a handful of people trying to claim that “our way” (whatever that is) is better. What we’re doing is trying to get the attention of people with little exposure to this, and to tell them that the “way” that they *typically* see splashed across their monitors is not the *only* way.

      I just did a quick search on male chastity. The first page is mainly links to forums, a few Youtube videos, a few femdom sites, and some web stores. The next page is mostly devices for sale. Not much in the way of good, useful information.

      If there’s a problem with helping people to understand that the old models aren’t necessarily the best way, then I’d like to see you to explain it.

    • Sarah says:

      Joe, you’re either stupid or being deliberately obtuse.

      Ponder this: there is a difference between education and instruction.

      If you can show me anywhere I’ve said my way is the right way for everyone, then I’ll write a cheque for £1,000 to a charity of your choice.

      If you can’t, and if you have a spine and any sense of honour, you’ll apologise.

      But I won’t hold my breath.

      Sarah.

  14. Billus says:

    Joe says, “This is all a very hot fantasy. It isn’t real. Why would be have a serious debate about pretend?”

    For the same reason people debate UFOs or religion – because other people go around saying “This really happened to me”. Most people know if you go to Altarboy and read the stories, they’re absurdly fictional. But not everybody. And not everybody who may be exploring their kinky side for the first time in some forum who reads stories defining The One True Way as being chained naked to a table at McDonalds last Saturday.

    Yes, the more impervious the collar, the hotter the fantasy, but the device really isn’t the point. It’s all the dogma that gets attached to an object made of plastic or metal. “once I click this lock shut, I’ll suddenly enjoy doing more housework, or want to sign over my bank account, or watch my wife who loves me suddenly blow the mailman, etc.”. It’s all this baggage that scares people away, “Honey, once you lock me up, you can blow the mailman!”. If your 25-year old wife is not turned on by the 57-year old mailman (who wears socks with shorts in the summer!), well, who’s fault is that? That’s what many people come across when they first investigate the idea of chastity. It’s vanilla in its own way, by not allowing other options.

    People are free to act on whatever fantasies they want, as long as acting them out is legal and involves consenting adults (as Lady Lubyanka points out, even the idea of giving up control is consensual, and not what it may appear to be). This discussion is not about dictating terms. God knows I’m all against that; but about providing other models of behaviour for people who are not interested in the usual chapter and verse of chastity.

  15. *ring ring* – *ring ring*

    “Emergency services.”

    “Hello, I need a psychiatric ambulance straight away!”

    “One moment, I’ll connect you … “

    “Psychiatric ambulance, what is the nature of your emergency?”

    “I don’t know what happened, this guy called Joe just showed up out of nowhere and started freaking out!”

    “What’s the address there, madam?”

    ” It’s Comment 1425814264 Consent and Sensibility Drive, Edge of Vanilla, Blogland.”

    “Operator, he’s responding to stuff nobody here is saying and I don’t know what to do. Please hurry.”

    “The psychiatric ambulance is on its way madam. Try to remain calm and the emotional health professionals will be with you shortly.”

    “Thank you so much, I’ll go and wait by the door. Oh my god, I think somebody’s trying to bait him! I gotta go, bye. *click*

  16. J says:

    “Carbonite? Get real, that’s only in Star Wars”

    So, you’re telling me that bar of material I bought for $2k from the guy in the Home Depot parking lot is not really carbonite? Well, what is it then, annodized aluminium? Come to think of it, it does have “Boeing” stamped on the side…

    “In other words, some women who’d be up for a bit of kink are not up for the dressing up as French Maids ”

    Thank you, thank you. One of the biggest concerns I had in suggesting chastity play to my wife was that she would go on-line and find all this sissy maid/cuckold/humiliation stuff and think that’s what *I* really wanted. I have zero desire to wear women’s clothing, would find humiliation very unerotic, and any guy trying to screw my wife would likely not need a chastity device by the time I was done with him.

    More voices from people not quite so far out on the ledge sure are welcome to me. Not that I want to muzzle the out-there folks, I just wish they didn’t blot out the sun for the rest of us.

  17. Kat5 says:

    I don’t know enough about all this (yet) to offer any opinion, but I wanted to say how funny I thought your opening paragraph was. 🙂

  18. “If you can show me anywhere I’ve said my way is the right way for everyone, then I’ll write a cheque for £1,000 to a charity of your choice.”

    Actually Sarah, I couldn’t find Joe alleging that you’d said “my way is the right way for everyone”, what I read Joe actually saying to you was
    “Ok, then stop trying to tell other people how it is.”

    And you have done a bit of that sometimes in these comments, quite inadvertently I’m sure. One example is where you said
    Male chastity is always consensual, as is any kind of male submission.”

    And clearly that’s not true because sometimes abuse exists no matter what the context, and how can you proclaim for sure that all male chastity and submission is abuse-free for everybody on the planet? So perhaps you might want to rethink the apology thing.

    Does that qualify for the cheque? 🙂

    Best regards, Lubyanka.

    ps: I thought you said that for you, male chastity and male submission were two completely different and separate things? Yet you said in the passage I quoted that male chastity is a kind of male submission. So I’m confused now. Would you clarify?

    pps: Thank you very much for your Top Banana award! Yay! 😀

    • Sarah says:

      Lubyanka, now I’m consfused. I’m curious to know how you come to believe male submission could be anything other than consensual.

      What cases, specifically. are you aware of where it’s otherwise?

      (Remember I’ve also qualified this by explicitly talking about Western society).

      Joe said: “My God, you are going to even write a ‘guide’ about it so everyone can get it right according to you.

      I think that qualifies as his suggesting I think my way is the right way for everyone, wouldn’t you agree?

      In the passage you quoted, I didn’t say male chastity is a kind of submission at all.

      You may have read it that way, and you may even believe the meaning is the message received (amusing how people say that… wonderfully ironic, really).

      Anyway., that view gives us flexibility in our responses and behaviour, but it doesn’t define reality for the speaker or writer.

      It’s one map we can choose, I know. But that doesn’t make it the territory, does it, hmm?

      Sarah.

  19. “Lubyanka, now I’m consfused. I’m curious to know how you come to believe male submission could be anything other than consensual.”

    Well, I believe that any human interaction of any style in any context can be unconsensual when it includes any instance of transgressing consent. And I believe that male submission can be unconsensual in those circumstances for that reason.

    “What cases, specifically. are you aware of where it’s otherwise?”

    For example if a man identifying as submissive promises his partner to abide by their decision, and then without any negotiation simply declines to do so, then I consider that to be a transgression of his partner’s consent to participate according to certain criteria, and that submission is therefore unconsensual.

    For an example from another direction, if in the absence of negotiated agreement a dominant coerces or manipulates a submissive into performing acts they don’t want to do and haven’t agreed to do, then I consider that to transgress the submissive’s consent and that submission is therefore unconsensual.

    I have personally witnessed more than one instance of both of these examples. I apologise for being unable to provide more concretely documented cases as you requested. I hope my explanation was clear enough.

    “Joe said: “My God, you are going to even write a ‘guide’ about it so everyone can get it right according to you.”

    I think that qualifies as his suggesting I think my way is the right way for everyone, wouldn’t you agree?”

    Actually, I think he used the words he chose, and I think you used the words you chose, which I read as different words and phrasing. I also think Joe suggested a lot of things which were unrelated to the words he referenced.

    “In the passage you quoted, I didn’t say male chastity is a kind of submission at all.”

    Ok, my mistake, I apologise.

    Thank you very much for clearing up my confusion, I appreciate it. 🙂

    Best regards,

    Lubyanka.

  20. Sarah says:

    Well, I believe that any human interaction of any style in any context can be unconsensual when it includes any instance of transgressing consent

    I’m curious to know how you know your beliefs are true.

    Your examples: they are not examples of non-consensual submission. I don’t recall anyone saying in these discussions that it’s not possible to force people to do things against their will. In fact, I specifically said John would be able to force me to give him the keys by using his brute strength.

    What I have said quite clearly is submission and chastity are always consensual.

    I can’t prove this, of course, just as I can’t prove there’s no such thing as the Easter Bunny.

    I suppose if I’d wanted to be really pedantic I’d have qualified it by adding caveats to indicate we are talking about times other than when a threat of violence or other coercion is immediately present.

    However, I really didn’t think it was necessary since the entire context of the discussion is long-term male chastity, and to a lesser extent male submission.

    But I trust you have counter examples — evidence — to support your beliefs.

    So i ask again: what cases, specifically, are you aware of where male chastity or submission are non-consensual?

    Sarah.

  21. Tom Allen says:

    Just to be clear, back in the third paragraph, I (sort of) specified the assumptions:

    This is not a paradox; except for extremely rare circumstances, people buy chastity devices in order to engage in erotic control scenes.

    IOW, I’m willing to concede that there might be unusual cases in which someone is threatened or coerced to such an extent that consent is moot. But I did approach this essay with the idea that such cases would necessary be irregular.

    Also, I, too, read Joe’s comment about her writing a book as an implication that Sarah was asserting that her own One True Way© was the best way.

  22. “I’m curious to know how you know your beliefs are true.”

    My beliefs are true for me because over time my observations and experience have consistently supported them and continue to support them. I can only draw conclusions from my own experiences. I make a distinction between “I believe”, “I think” and similar, and “Such-and-such is universally true”. When I say “I believe”, I am speaking only for myself. I know that at least for me, my personal truths and universal absolute truths are different entities.

    “Your examples: they are not examples of non-consensual submission. I don’t recall anyone saying in these discussions that it’s not possible to force people to do things against their will.”

    Personally, I make a distinction between transgressing consent and force. I think that transgressing consent can be easily done in the total absence of force, simply by contravening an agreement. Touching me with a fingertip without my permission is hardly forceful, nor is anybody doing anything against their will to accomplish it. Yet that touching is definitely unconsensual because it transgresses my sovereign rights over my own body and transgresses my consent to be touched.

    Since I thought my examples were precisely about unconsensual submission, and you said they aren’t, would you please clarify for me what you think my examples are about?

    “So i ask again: what cases, specifically, are you aware of where male chastity or submission are non-consensual?”

    I answered this question to the best of my ability with the examples I provided above. Since my previous examples didn’t provide what you were seeking, it seems that I’m unclear about what you’re asking. Would you please rephrase?

    Best regards,

    Lubyanka.

  23. Sarah says:

    I’m confused.

    To me your examples are just long-winded ways of saying “some men break their promises” and “some dominant people make others engage in non-consensual acts”.

    I don’t think anyone here has denied that, especially as we weren’t discussing it. To me the context has always clearly been about consent and long-term chastity and submission, not individual acts of coercion or deceit.

    So I’m curious to know how you think these demonstrate the existence of long-term non-consensual male chastity and/or submission in Western society.

    Sarah.

  24. “To me your examples are just long-winded ways of saying “some men break their promises” and “some dominant people make others engage in non-consensual acts”. […] To me the context has always clearly been about consent and long-term chastity and submission, not individual acts of coercion or deceit.

    So I’m curious to know how you think these demonstrate the existence of long-term non-consensual male chastity and/or submission in Western society.”

    Oh, I think I see now what you’re asking. When I think of “male chastity”, “male submission” and “relationships”, I think of those in many contexts, which include temporary individual one-off play sessions as well as long term ongoing situations. And I appreciate that the premise of Tom’s post was a discussion of the issues of force and consent based on the assumption of consensual healthy relationships. However, I didn’t see anything in the post which limited discussion of those issues solely to relationships which are longer-term and ongoing.

    I think that without going much into which types he excluded or included, Tom discussed the issues of force and consent within relationships of many types, which to me could well include one-off or occasional play sessions. And when I think of the term “relationship”, I think of many different kinds, not just the long-term ongoing ones. So my thinking included more than just the longer-term ongoing ones you referred to, and that was the perspective I was coming from. I didn’t realise you were asking specifically and solely about long-term ongoing relationships.

    Having sorted that out (I hope!), I do think what I was saying does apply equally to long, medium, short, and occasional-term relationships. And I was trying to point out that regardless of their duration, frequency or ongoingness, some relationships do fit descriptions other than “healthy and consensual”.

    I think we all know that however undesirable and unpleasant, abusive relationships do exist in large enough numbers to have led to laws addressing them, social services protocols for addressing them, law enforcement and legal procedures for addressing them, and so on.

    Many times I have personally observed what I consider to be abusive relationships, and some of those relationships do incorporate male chastity and male submission.

    If any statistical data have been collected regarding the proportion of abusive relationships which incorporate BDSM and/or specifically male chastity and/or male submission, I don’t know about it, so I can’t direct you to it. I can only assure you that from my own observations within the cultures I’ve had experience of, abusive relationships incorporating variants of male chastity and/or male submission are every bit as commonplace as abusive relationships of any other style.

    So in my experience, male chastity and male submission can easily be unconsensual on an ongoing basis no matter what type, frequency or length of relationship they happen to be part of.

    Phew, I hope that cleared that up? Heh. 🙂

    Best regards,

    Lubyanka.

    • Sarah says:

      So what stops these men from breaking the chastity and submission if they don’t consent to it?

      How do the women prevent the men from walking away, cutting the belt off, or whatever?

      Sarah.

  25. “So what stops these men from breaking the chastity and submission if they don’t consent to it?

    How do the women prevent the men from walking away, cutting the belt off, or whatever?”

    1 – I cannot possibly speak for other people or their reasons for doing what they do.

    2 – I’m not a behavioural psychologist nor otherwise qualified to explain to you the dynamics of abusive relationships.

    3 – Information on the ways abusers exert unconsensual control over their targets, and the reasons those targets remain in their situations can be found all over the web, if you’re interested.

    Based on the evidence from numerous studies which you can find all over the web, your first question is a variant of one of the most commonly asked questions on this topic. You can find many reputable web resources which describe that for whatever reasons, people don’t always recognise they’re in an abusive situation and therefore have nothing to stop, and even when they do recognise it many still remain in their abusive situation for a long time. These are established facts which you can find documented in reputable sources all over the internet.

    To get you started, here is a link to 50 of the most common reasons why a person might not leave an abusive relationship. Please note that most of these resources are phrased to assume that a woman is the target, but abuse of men is becoming more widely recognised, and the listed reasons apply equally to men.

    Your questions are probably most accurately and completely answered by the many resources available on the web documenting the dynamics of abusive relationships.

    I hope that helped.

    Best regards,

    Lubyanka.

  26. Sarah says:

    None of these 50 relate to male chastity and submission.

    What’s more, while many of them are coercive, they have little to do with forcing a man to wear a chastity belt or submit to his female partner.

    You don’t actually have any evidence, do you? Whereas we know for sure it’s possible to cut the steel of a chastity belt.

    Male chastity and submission are consensual. Fact.

    Sarah.

  27. “while many of them are coercive, they have little to do with forcing a man to wear a chastity belt or submit to his female partner. […] Whereas we know for sure it’s possible to cut the steel of a chastity belt.

    Male chastity and submission are consensual. Fact.”

    By your rationale, if we know for sure that it’s possible to incapacitate a rapist, then the rape was consensual?

    That logic may work for you, but I can’t stomach it.

    Best regards,

    Lubyanka.

    • Sarah says:

      Lubyanka,

      I’d be really fascinated to see what parallels you see between someone being forced to have sexual intercourse by threat or application of violence and a man wearing a chastity belt 24 hours a day with every opportunity to remove it.

      I’m curious… exactly how do you equate the two in your mind?

      Sarah.

  28. Tom Allen says:

    I’d like to take a moment to opine that we seem to be losing sight of the situation which I was trying to describe. I admit that I made an assumption that it would be clear that I was *not* describing the use of chastity devices in an abusive relationship. In fact, my belief is that in those cases, the point of the abuse is not the chastity itself anyway, it’s the physical or emotional abuse.

    Certainly a person can “force” their partner to wear a device as a form of abuse. However, it seems to me that a more typical approach would be to simply force them to live in a room in the basement, to cut of contact with friends and family, beat them, berate them, or to engage in some other tactic than to simply lock them in a plastic or steel device.

    Indeed, in this kind of situation, if a person – male or female – were so physically or emotionally abused that they would wear a device for fear of retribution, that goes *way* beyond the argument of “consent” within the context of a vanilla or even a D/s relationship.

    While I concede that situations like this are possible, such severe abuse is generally not part of the “‘enforced chastity” paradigm found in the various web boards, blogs, etc.

    Several years ago, a man started a blog (since taken down) in which he described his “enforced” chastity and went on to describe his emotional turmoil as his partner made the decision on her own to cuckold him. He described the situation taking place over several weeks and went into some realistic emotional detail.

    Interestingly, over those few weeks the comments left on his blog changed from guys who kept describing his situation as “hot” and “a dream come true” into a series of comments by people urging him to seek legal and mental help, and encouraging him to kick his partner’s ass to the curb (paraphrased).

    When the commentators (commentors?) began asking why he continued to wear his plastic device instead of breaking it off or cutting the lock, he offered some rather lame excuses. Eventually he was exposed (and admitted) as somebody who was simply making up a tale.

    My point is that even internet wankers (well, some of them) are (eventually) smart enough to know the difference between consensual non-consent and actual abuse.

  29. Joe says:

    Well, this has certainly taken on a life of its own. First of all, some are making the point that I was stating things that were not said here. I want to point out that some of my comments to Sarah come from her site as well, where she seems to contradict herself a lot or just changes her mind from post to post about what she wants to do in her relationship.

    And, another thing, I don’t care if you think you are clearing things up for new initiates that stumble on the internet and find a bunch of commercial sites that you deem to be scary (because of dresses?) or what ever you don’t find to your personal taste. But, remember they are there because some people must really dig on those fantasies and that is their bend. To try and make your bend on chastity less scary and hence more normal is just silly.

    And, to try and brand it as vanilla is just practicing rationalization-masturbation. It only serves to make you feel good. Because, come on, lets be honest here; buying a thousand dollar full stainless steel chastity belt and making/having your husband wear it, is not vanilla. You want to make a joke about calling 911? How about this for a phone call: Calling Dr. Drew… this gal(?) Sarah wants to have her husband wear a chastity belt, maybe permanent, but she also wants to believe it is vanilla. Dr. Drew, do you think that there are any abuse issues here, now or in the past?

    Chastity is not vanilla. And, I suspect that in a lot of cases the men wanting to wear these belts want to suppress their sexual identity. When they wear these belts they see themselves as women. That would explain why there is so much dress wearing and sissy identification tied up with the chastity fantasy. Cross gender issues and transvestite behavior.

    My point is that not everyone can be defined by my observation, but to call chastity belts vanilla is a bit of a stretch. If, it makes you feel better to think this way, I guess it is ok for you, but don’t make your brand the accepted or ok version by terming it vanilla. Maybe everyone should dig a little deeper here.

    And, of course, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But, a full blown metal chastity belt worn maybe permanently is an awfully big cigar to have in the room.

    Joe.

    p.s. Lady Lubyanka, your logic and mind rock!

    • Tom Allen says:

      I want to point out that some of my comments to Sarah come from her site as well, where she seems to contradict herself a lot or just changes her mind from post to post about what she wants to do in her relationship.

      Where she also admits as much. She (and her husband) are having some hot fantasies and are simply voicing them. My wife and I do the same thing; I think that’s fairly normal.

      But, remember they are there because some people must really dig on those fantasies

      Yes, that’s obvious. But why shouldn’t we try to get the message out that *their* way of thinking, despite being common, is not the *only* way? Look, in the last several years, I’ve had a lot of messages from women and men who were *mainly* vanilla, and just wanted to experiment with some kinky chastity play. Many of them were turned off by sissy and cuckold aspects, but were happy to have run across this blog and several other venues in which the chastity enthusiasts were more “normal”, i.e., more resembled what those new people had in mind.

      Let’s flip this around. The, er, dominant model for femdom, i..e., the image most represented in the media, is the leather-clad, whip-wielding Mistress Cruella. Many women who, when approached by their partners to engage in some femdom play, are scared off because they can’t see themselves in this role. Unfortunately, there have been far too few resources available to let them see that there are other models, ones which might better mesh with their own internal scripts, and allow them to take more of an interest in exploring this with their partners.

      Joe, I fail to see how education is a bad thing, here.

      Finally, I don’t think that anybody is actually suggesting that chastity play *is* vanilla. However, it’s been my contention that in the proper context it can be seen as a very ‘”afe” and mild kink, one which mainly vanilla people could learn to enjoy without feeling like they have to wear leather and chains.

      My wife considers herself to be vanilla, and in all other respects would appear to be so. But she feels safe with this because (in her mind) it’s not an “active” kink (like sensation play, dressing up in outfits, etc.). She locks it on, and then she doesn’t need to think about it, there’s no role playing, and she doesn’t even need to get dressed in latex (more’s the pity). Yes, she realizes it’s not *totally* vanilla, but she perceives it to be benign, and therefore, vanilla-ish.

  30. J says:

    “My wife considers herself to be vanilla, and in all other respects would appear to be so. But she feels safe with this because (in her mind) it’s not an “active” kink (like sensation play, dressing up in outfits, etc.). She locks it on, and then she doesn’t need to think about it, there’s no role playing, and she doesn’t even need to get dressed in latex (more’s the pity). Yes, she realizes it’s not *totally* vanilla, but she perceives it to be benign, and therefore, vanilla-ish”

    I think my wife has much the same thought process. We’ve played with the more “active” kinks, and wow does she ever look good in latex. And leather, and boots, and with a whip in her hand, and…

    Ah, pardon me, I got a little distracted there.

    I think for her the Mistress Cruella role requires some play acting that she’s not entirely comfortable with. But chastity doesn’t require that. She can be herself and still participate in some kinky play.

    But the leather outfits… Sigh.

  31. Joe says:

    Of course it is considered vanilla by your wives. I’m talking about the guy walking around locked up in a chastity belt 24/7. That is not vanilla. By the way, no judgment of the kink, I think it is hot. I’d try it with the right person. I’d even like to be the key holder. What would keep me from doing it is that I’d rather spend a grand on a nice camera or something else.

    And, thanks for agreeing that Sarah “changes her mind.” How is she going to write a guide when she keeps flopping back and forth on how she views different aspects of this. First she thinks permanent is not right then it is their kinkiest fantasy. Go read her comments from beginning to end. I can’t tell what she thinks. Which is also ok. I get the exploring part. But, both of you come across as some sort of experts and seem to believe you have the grail on truth. I know, you are going to say where do we say that. Just take the totality of your messages and add it all up.

    I know that you have found each other here and that you can huddle together in the dark and make it all ok for each other. I just happen to think that your vanilla is a little more deviant and less absolute than you admit. Which is cool. Take care.

    • Tom Allen says:

      Joe, Sarah writing about wanting one thing, then another is perfectly normal. It’s just fantasizing. Seriously, I think that you’re just *looking* for things to complain about. As I said earlier, those of us “huddled together” are just trying to educate, to let people know that the stereotyped models are not the *only* way that things have to be. I can’t imagine why anybody would fail to see this as a bad thing.

  32. “I’d be really fascinated to see what parallels you see between someone being forced to have sexual intercourse by threat or application of violence and a man wearing a chastity belt 24 hours a day with every opportunity to remove it.
    I’m curious… exactly how do you equate the two in your mind?”

    Sarah, that’s easy, I draw no parallells between sexual assault and consensual chastity. In my mind they are separate and different entities which can also co-exist. A burger is not a potato, although both can sometimes be part of the same meal.

    “p.s. Lady Lubyanka, your logic and mind rock!”

    Thank you Joe, I’m delighted to have merited my very own kudos-y p.s. 🙂

    Best regards, Lubyanka.

    • Sarah says:

      Oh, I see.

      Just to clarify: when you say, “consensual chastity” seemingly referring to my “a man wearing a chastity belt 24 hours a day with every opportunity to remove it, are you in fact accepting my entire point that the two are the same?

      Now, your “logic”: at one point you presented some poorly thought out logic which seemed to imply you thought the two — rape and consensual chastity — were at least similar because you extended allowing one behaviour into allowing another based on my premise.

      How did you do that?

      Rape and male chastity are a world apart, wouldn’t you agree? A man is typically bigger, stronger and more aggressive than a woman, and rape is a violent event whereas chastity is (again by definition) an ongoing process or state.

      How can you treat them as if they were somehow equivalent in principle? You must be doing this to link them as you did with your “logic” (I’ll come to that in a moment).

      I find it hard to imagine any situation in Western society, which is specifically what we were discussing, where a man could be forced into chastity in the same way a woman can be forced into having sex. I’m really curious how you managed to link the two. If I was cynical I’d say you were deliberately using an emotional argument because that’s all you had left… but surely not.

      Now, I know my finding something hard to understand or imagine doesn’t invalidate it or make it untrue, so please educate me… how do you think a woman could do this in the same way as a man can rape a woman? I know some people think NLP and other “technologies” can turn them into a kind of Jedi Mind-Control Warrior, but I’m sure you’re so stupid you believe that yourself, are you? I mean, I don’t believe for a second you think these men are under some kind of freaky hypnotic mind control from which it’s “impossible” for them to escape, do you?

      Wait! There’s more! Because your statement, “By your rationale, if we know for sure that it’s possible to incapacitate a rapist, then the rape was consensual?“, while having emotional appeal to the hard of thinking, doesn’t actually hang together.

      For one thing rape is, by definition, non-consensual (consent given under duress or coercion is not consent, as you should know).

      Let me put it clearly enough so even Joe, who thinks your “logic rocks”, can understand: rape is, by definition, non-consensual. It makes no sense to talk of “consenting to rape”. So your logic is flawed, and objectively so.

      You are indeed trying to compare burgers and potatoes, because as even you seem to be able to see, rape is entirely different from a man being “forced” into chastity.

      So, back to “forced chastity”… am I correct in presuming you don’t actually have any evidence to suggest there are men out there who are forced into chastity? You just have supposition and pointers to websites talking about abused women?

      In general I think it’s fair comment to say if you have the means to prevent something happening to you and you have the means to prevent it without harm to yourself or another, then you are consenting to it. Consent by acquiescence is a, um, common principle in common in law, for instance (I think it’s called something else, but I can’t remember right now and can’t be bothered to look it up). In more everyday terms, this probably isn’t black and white but more of a continuum, and there are definitely some things for which you have to give explicit consent.

      What’s more there’s more involved than just the behaviour of the antagonist. I mean, do I “consent” to pay tax? If I don’t they’ll use violence to take it from my by force, ultimately. But in law, yes, I am actually consenting by not refusing.

      A very interesting subject, to be sure. But not one I think is worth discussing further with someone who resorts to emotional arguments. I know I’ve asked you several questions, but I don’t really need the answers. I have them already, I think.

      You’ll reply, I’m sure, because it’s important for you to have the last word, and I’m happy to grant you that honour, Lubyanka.

      Tom: I’m wondering if it’s possible Joe is “Mistress Sara” and just doesn’t want someone stealing her customers, :-).

      Sarah

  33. Joe, if I think Brussels sprouts taste kind of ucky, and if calling them “profiteroles” pleases me and makes them easier and nicer for me to eat, are you going to come along and ruin my fun by insisting that my profiteroles still taste ucky and will make me fart a lot? 😛

    I think, if people think chastity tastes nicer for them when they call it vanilla, then why not? Your experience of it is going to remain the same no matter what anybody else calls it, so I say, if people find a name useful, then they should use it.

    Thus endeth this foody pontificatathon. And lo, there was much dessert, I mean rejoicing. 🙂

    • Sarah says:

      Indeed!

      But I am curious… when you say “if people think chastity tastes nicer for them” do you mean they might not actually know it tastes nicer for them? And, by inference, that someone else somehow might know better?

      And by “when they call it vanilla” do you mean when they claim it is vanilla, or just tastes like it to them?

      See, I’m wondering at the difference between the noun and adjectival forms of vanilla.

      It wouldn’t do to mix them up and put words into people’s mouths, you know, for that would be dishonest (if it were deliberate), would it not?

      Sarah.

  34. Aarkey says:

    “kudzu of the kinky internet” – that’s golden. I find the other discussion that pops up with the same frequency and tone is “are pro dommes real dommes” – but I think that just varies on where you surf for your kinky discussions 😉

    There’s a ton in this post, and a ton in replies… I’m not sure what “WSD” is a reference to btw… (you wrote “Part of the WSD” )

    One thing that’s really occurred to me reading this is for the first time I see a real merit in being a part of the larger blog scene (which I’ve long felt is spammish) with the HNT and the e[lusts] etc. At least it puts a legit person’s experiences into the mix with all the fantasy stuff.

    And I personally love fantasy – when it’s clearly labeled as such. I find it sad when fantasies push away realities. And there (as mentioned here) many of the guys just looking for a wank who have taken their fantasies so far off that it scares real people when they get introduced to chastity. :-/

    • Sarah says:

      Aarkey,

      If you look into human psychology, you’ll see it’s a fairly common behaviour. Religions and cults of all kinds (religious, business, self-help, just to name a few) seem very different at first glance, but they’re all very similar underneath and use similar strategies to encourage compliance.

      Any “in group” is the same, and the cliques holding to different fantasies are no exception. The notion of the “in group” and the “out group” is very strong in humans which is why people get so angry when one posts things exposing the idiocy for what it is, whether it’s their religion, the “Law of Attraction”, Scientology or non-consensual male chastity and submission.

      Often they’ll counter this kind of statement by saying objectivity is “just another clique”, much like religious people wrongly say atheism is (necessarily) just another belief system.

      Truth is, I’m always open to be convinced by the evidence and am not wedded to any particular belief. idealogues are somewhat different in that they already have the belief and then look for evidence to support it and disregard the rest.

      In my experience you can’t argue them out of it because you’re trying to use logic to argue them out of an emotional position. Doesn’t work.

      I love fantasies, not least the fantasy of permanent chastity and denial, which may well be reality for some couples. But I’m also aware enough to know my emotional reaction to it clouds my objective sense of proportion and rationality.

      And that’s part of the key, in my life at any rate: knowing what my failings and weaknesses are.

      Sarah.

    • Tom Allen says:

      Aarkey, “WSD” is Willing Suspension of Disbelief, which was mentioned in the previous sentence (and referenced in the hover text).

      I know you’ve mentioned that blogging, at least, what passes for sex blogging is mainly attention whor-ism, and I’m not going to disagree. But I’d like to think that there are a handful of people out there who are trying to offer up a little more than just titillation.

      Of course, then you get Luka, who doesn’t think I’m a sex blogger, but I guess you can’t make everybody happy.

      I love reading erotica, too – and I really get turned off when people try to present their personal, internal scripts as something that’s actually happening.

    • Aarkey says:

      Hover Text? I’m not seeing that… what am I missing?

      As to Luka’s remark, I don’t know what to say, but I do know that men in general aren’t nearly as “chatty” as most women. And once the blood is in the pants the brain doesn’t think all that much, so it’s like she’s saying “I went into the room where the men are masturbating and start up a conversation” and well… that just ain’t going to work too well.

      Unless she wants to talk about masturbation, they’re probably up for that kind of chat 😉

  35. nursemyra says:

    this is the longest and most interesting thread of comments I’ve read in quite a while

    • Tom Allen says:

      I think that few people stop to examine sexuality seriously, and sometimes when they do, they get responses like that of Joe’s, who seems to wonder what good comes of such navel gazing.

  36. The Reader says:

    I think one of the most interesting comments you make is that:

    I suspect that you, yourself have become more focused, a better parter, etc., because you’re enjoying the attention and you’re reciprocating in a way that fits the paradigm you’ve set for yourself

    I think that’s a very insightful comment.

    Male chastity does mean, paradoxically, that there is an increase in the amount of attention that is focussed on the man’s (lack of) orgasm and on their genitals.
    By denying the orgasm, it becomes something the couples think about and plan for – the device is evidence on the amount of attention being lavished on the man’s sexual conduct.

    Maybe you’re a better partner, not because of orgasm denial per se, but because you have a tangible daily reminder that your partner is paying attention to and cares about your sexuality. And you want to repay the favour.

    • Tom Allen says:

      I get so sick of hearing that chastity or OD will make you a better partner. If you believe the hype, all you need to do is deny him orgasms, and he will do more chores, put the seat down, open the car door, and send you flowers for no reason. Yeesh! Come on, folks – there are *lots* of people who aren’t getting orgasms from their partners already.

      It’s not the denial, it’s that it has become an *active* pat of your relationship, and you’re happy about it. Happy partners *do* nice things. Why is that so hard to understand?

    • Sarah says:

      Quite right, Tom.

      I’d go further and suggest those relationships which are already sexless because the woman’s skin crawls every time he comes near her are going to find C&OD actually adds to their problems rather than solves them.

      But point this out and the Chastity Taliban jump up and down and get their man-boobs all a-jiggle.

      Sarah.

  37. “Happy partners *do* nice things. Why is that so hard to understand?”

    I think many people’s experience of this kind of happiness is very limited, and that may be why this concept seems so difficult for so many to grasp.

    I know from my own experience how difficult it is to conceptualise an idea when it’s based on a sensation which is unfamiliar. Try to explain the taste of beer to somebody who’s never even smelled it – you may find the only way they’ll really get it is to physically experience it. And without the physical experience, the description will remain meaningless.

    I think it’s sort of like the natural selection with which babies learn how to control their movements – babies accidentally discover the combination of movements which will allow them to successfully grasp an object and wrap their lips around it. This is a result they want, so they repeat the process until they’re fabulous at it, and then they do it some more because the results are so desirable. 🙂

    In a relationship incorporating chastity, I think people likewise stumble on the combination of actions and responses which yield desirable results, and only then do they know which ones to keep doing. But if they never stumble across them then they remain unaware how to proceed.

    I also think that doing and successfully feeling good yields to useful conclusions about why those things work well when others do not, which then leads to more experiments and more successes. This may be why all that thinking without doing in the chastity groups so often fails to lead to useful conclusions.

    I think that may be why you can describe the taste of beer or the workings of happy healthy chastity-style relationships to never-happily-partnered chastity aficionados til your tongue falls off, and because they have no experiences which will allow them to relate to the useful information, they have no reason to give that information any more weight than their favourite fantasy information. And the fantasy information feels good to them, even better than the reality-based information which they have no way of testing, so they cling to the fantasy because it feels best.

    I just wish more of them were more polite about doing that. 😛

    I’m just going to finish off with my thought that successful tease and denial involves a lot of validation. I think the cycle goes something like this –
    – the denied partner’s response validates the teaser who then feels good
    – the teaser’s response validates the denied who then also feels good
    – everybody feels yummy and wants to do more
    – doing more yields more yummy feelings
    – rinse, repeat

    I think this is why locking a person up and then ignoring the lockingness feels so unsatisfying. I also think this cycle fosters its own repetition and growth because the increasing pleasure fuels the motivation to repeat the process and experiment in the hope for similar desirable results.

    Based on what they tell me, I’ve concluded that the never-happily-partnered chastity aficionado is profoundly aware that they crave this kind of validation (even if they don’t have a name for it) but have no idea what combination of actions will yield that result. And without a partner they unfortunately also lack any way to experiment or experience successes. I think all that stuff I wrote above is why so many people seem unable to grasp the concepts we have learnt from successfully exploring chastity within our own relationships.

    I feel so bad for all those lonely people, even the ones who are mean to me, because I am so fortunate to have what they lack and constantly crave.

    Partly because there are so very many perpetually-unpartnered unhappy people out there, I like to take at least one moment every single day to notice how very grateful and appreciative I am to have the wit and social skills to attract and keep partners, to function productively within my relationships, and to have a partner like my kvetch who is such a constant source of joy and comfort and pleasure.

    So whatever it was I was saying, I think I’m done now. 🙂

  38. Joe says:

    Lady Lubyanka, Brussels sprouts…now there is a kink.

    I’m sure we can all agree that forced brussels sprouts can’t be considered vanilla by anyone. I’ve even been forced to eat cabbage while wearing a scary-dress and being called a sissy-joe.

    Interestingly, I find a big cabbage easier to eat if I call it a brussels sprout. So, I see your point that if makes the kink easier to swallow, then why not call it something else… like a brussels sprout. Goosebumps!!!

    Bon Appe-tit,

    Joe

    • “I’m sure we can all agree that forced brussels sprouts can’t be considered vanilla by anyone.”

      Oh Joe, I must disagree with you here. In my experience, people can believe almost anything they want. Look how easy it is to believe that brussels sprouts can be forced into a pot with a vanilla pod and cooked so you get forced vanilla brussels sprouts. It’s definitely possible, and I certainly believe it. Regardless of who is or is not willing to eat them, I at least am convinced that forced brussels sprouts can be vanilla.

      So I do regret disappointing you, but honestly, I can consider forced brussels sprouts to be vanilla, so there you have it. I have a vivid imagination, what can I say. 😛

      “Interestingly, I find a big cabbage easier to eat if I call it a brussels sprout. So, I see your point that if makes the kink easier to swallow, then why not call it something else”

      Oh thank goodness! I had been thinking that my ability to explain things had been kidnapped by aliens and experimented on and secretly replaced in the dead of night with a cheap knock-off.

      I can’t tell you how delighted I am that somebody understood what I was saying! That is such a relief, honestly. Phew. Thank you so much for telling me that my thingy I said made sense to you. That just rocked my world for the last second and a half. Yay!

      Best regards,

      Lubyanka. 🙂

  39. Oh, by the way, I just remembered one time about 6 years ago when a friend of mine pointed me at an IRC channel on freenode which some guy set up, ostensibly to help men improve their ability to converse with women so that the women they desired didn’t keep running away.

    What I found in there was pretty much a mainstream version of the uninformed partnerless chastity pontificator. Essentially the men in there were all trying to out-do each other in the debate of whose method for chatting up women was best.

    Why I tried to point out why none of those methods worked for me or other women I knew, I was very firmly told that I knew nothing about it and I should shut my face and take a few pointers from them. It didn’t take me long to work out the incongruence between their stated goals and their attitudes in practice.

    Just a wee anecdote I thought I’d share. 🙂

    • Sarah says:

      Happens a lot, hence my comments about “in groups” and “out groups”.

      You should try telling some of the NLP gurus in their forums how their stated “fact” everyone can visualise is demonstrably wrong.

      Sarah.

  40. Michael_X says:

    Hi Tom and fellow commentors,

    Oh dear, this is going round in circles in my head. Reading through the comments and posts here and on Sarah’s blog I get the impression that most people are actually agreeing on everything except the language they use.

    This subject pushes quite a few buttons for me.

    It was pummeled into me as part of my education that when it comes to anything involving human biology and behaviour the words never and always are almost always wrong. So a simple statement that chastity is always consensual sets off alarm bells.

    One aspect here that maybe needs to be considered is that some, I think this was Brigget’s argument on Sarah’s blog, are in a situation where the chastity is consensual but it is forced in the sense that consent could not be easily withdrawn should the locked decide they don’t wish to continue. This gives the fantasy/reality of forced even though consent is there.

    I say fantasy/reality because it may well be that the KH has sufficient power in the relationship that the benefits of remaining in chastity and the costs of refusing for the locked would outweigh any change of mind and desire to end the game and the KH may well have a proven track record of sticking by their guns. That may in effect make it real, they have no choice even though they are consenting.

    The only credible account of someone forced into wearing a belt I’m aware of was a blog by a woman, Alison, who has subsequently removed a lot of her earlier posts and then later deleted it. The gist of it was she was sleeping around and her husband said wear a belt or divorce. Since she wished to remain married she complied and subsequently got into it as a kink and has continued with it long since and long after her husband’s death in several subsequent relationships. It started non consensually and became consensual. Her blog over the years had a high level of logical consistency and came across as credible and I seem to recall was linked to here.

    Sadly I’ve certainly encountered couples in real life where power imbalance arising from wealth has enabled one partner to totally control the life of the other in ways I considered to be abusive. The one that closest fits in respect of this thread was a guy Claire and I knew, Alistair. He was having a very clandestine long term affair with Mary who we also knew. He was in a sexless loveless marriage that he chose to stay in for financial reasons and his wife found out. He chose to remain with his wife, end his affair and all outside social activities and friendships, and to continue to sleep in a separate bedroom living in a separate wing of her mansion rather than be divorced and end up impoverished. People stay in bad situations. No device but certainly enforced chastity. Okay, chastity in the vanilla world sense, as far as I’m aware he was probably allowed to masturbate solo, but I don’t know that for certain.

    I’ve also encountered situations where people have agreed to things in relationships that they don’t wish without it being in anyway an abusive relationship simply because within the bigger picture they considered doing so worthwhile.

    Apart from the never/always problem another aspect of this that pushes my buttons is the implication that consent can always (!) be simply withdrawn once given. Maybe I react so strongly because in the play Claire and I engage in if we agree to do something we are bound by our word and to simply withdraw consent and say I no longer feel like playing just wouldn’t happen. It’s tied in with all sorts of core values such as integrity, honour, and the like. One doesn’t lightly break one’s word. Therefore I can well imagine someone agreeing to something, e.g. indefinite device chastity, deciding they’d rather they hadn’t but not having the option to unilaterally end it.

    Moving to a different topic and a little outside this precise internet locale of this part of the conversation. Sissy maids have come in for a lot of stick. Not alas the rattan variety which they might well enjoy. I’ve noticed that some kinky activities tend to cluster. People who are into x are often also into y and z. However it isn’t always reciprocal, so those into z may have no interest in x. That’s fine. So quite possibly lots of sissy maids are into chastity but the majority of chastity players are not into being sissy maids. That is not the fault of the sissy maids and they have every bit as much right to have their gender exploration and humiliation play respected as those who wear steel nickers or lock plastic on their genitals for other reasons. I say this because some of the arguments and comments in this distributed conversation in respect of sissy maids are such that if you replace the words “sissy maid” with “gay” they sound almost exactly like your average chav homophobe talking about gays and I suspect that this reflects a discomfort with or consciousness blindspot concerning gender issues on the part of the writers. Since I can’t read minds I may well be wrong. My point is that, yes sissy maids may turn some people off the whole idea of kink, and yes their very existence may be a problem for guys trying to explain they want to play with chastity but are not into the sissy maid thing or the cuckolding thing or whatever, nonetheless their kink is simply different.

    It does occur to me that in respect of the last paragraph my experience has been of meeting sane likable people in real life who are into that form of play in real life so it may well be irrelevant or inapplicable to cyber sissy maids.

    Back in the 80’s and 90’s Claire and I where very involved in the UK scene both public and private and at the end of the 80’s a good friend and, at one point girlfriend (poly relationship), was a prodom so I’ve probably encountered a lot more real life kinky people and greater variety of kink than most which probably makes me more aware of the diversity that exists.

    To conclude any position that argues always or never is almost certainly at most 99% right and YKINOK is usually not okay; however, Tom, I agree, you are 100% right in stating that any device can always be physically removed and, obviously, we all hopefully agree that real abuse is never OK.

    Michael

    • Tom Allen says:

      Michael, just to address only one of the points you made, Alison did not start non-consensually; she decided that she wanted to remain married (I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that her husband was well-to-do, and that she had a pleasant, upper-middle class lifestyle), and chose to wear a chastity device instead of divorce (according to her; I’ve seen her blog and her posts on message boards elsewhere).

      Having a choice denotes at least some degree of consent. One of the issues is trying to determine the consequences of ones actions with regard to such choices. This is why the stories about how “I was forced into chastity by my wife who said that I have to wear this carbonite belt, or she would show the pictures of me dressed in my frillies to my family/boss/clients/Facebook,” sound like so much horse manure. Assuming that they were true (which they aren’t), the writer has a choice.

      Yes, you could argue that such examples of emotional or financial blackmail gives you so little choice that it borders on non-consent, and I would to some extent agree. But since those stories are not true (remember, they are usually just outward displays of the internal kinky scripts running through the mind of the writer), then discussing such non-consent is more of an academic exercise.

    • Nice post, Michael, and cogently said. Thank you. 🙂

      “Having a choice denotes at least some degree of consent.”

      Whilst acknowledging that you did say “some degree of consent”, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of “some consent” or “degrees of consent”. I do appreciate that many things are not black and white, and I also appreciate that not everybody shares my opinion that consent is only ever on or off. Having said that, I do feel that elements of choice can be broken down into their smallest constituent parts, and for those consent may separately and individually be on or off. I’m just saying, this is how it is for me.

      And Tom, I’ve often run into the premise that choice = consent. My problem with that is, in the case of one person offering choices to another, there is a very real possibility that choices which would otherwise be available may be artificially limited. In other words, choices which may be more desirable to the one choosing and less desirable to the one offering may unilaterally and arbitrarily be excluded from consideration. I know from my own experience that artificially and unfairly limiting choice is quite easy to do in ways which nobody outside the relationship will notice or care. So the idea of establishing consent simply by noting the existence of choice bothers me a fair bit.

      At any rate, a person’s degree of discomfort (for which I do agree there are degrees) will tell themselves unequivocally whether their consent is being respected or not. Whether they are able to articulate this clearly to others is another matter.

      I would also like to acknowledge that part of the difficulties with discussing consent is that it does tend to be an emotive topic, and I think that full discussion of it must necessarily incorporate what happens when consent is incomplete or absent. I appreciate that this can lead a conversation in uncomfortable directions.

      I hope my participation in these comments has remained within the bounds of what you consider respectful and acceptable. I try very hard to keep it there.

      With warmth and tasty goodness,

      Lubyanka.

    • Tom Allen says:

      So the idea of establishing consent simply by noting the existence of choice bothers me a fair bit.

      That’s understood, and I think I accounted for that by talking about “degrees” of consent. For instance, in the case of Alison, her “choice” (in her opinion) was wear a belt (it was an Access Denied or Neosteel style), or give up a certain lifestyle, and possibly the custody of the children. This is pretty similar to the wanker fiction, except that the outcomes are generally a bit more extreme.

      Is a choice to give up a major part of your life or lifestyle actually a choice? Strictly speaking, yes. However, it gets rather murky trying to see through the emotional turmoil in order to agree that it is consent.

      All that said, however, I think it still runs a bit sideways to the points that I was trying to make; which is that for many players, part of the hotness of the idea is *believing* that they have no control. This belief can be reinforced by more expensive chastity devices or by some sort of contract.

      The irony here (and I admit to making a large assumption) is that only people who are free to believe in their loss of control can have such fantasies. People who *actually* live the reality of no control probably do not fantasize about such things.

      I remember once reading a message board thread on why it seems that (for example) plumbers, mechanics, or bakers never seem to visit pro dommes — it always seems to be managers and VPs in high-powered industries. The theory under discussion was that people in blue collar jobs were inherently “trapped” and had little reason to search for some kind of release through pain or humiliation. I don’t believe this theory (frankly, I think it’s a pricing issue), but I do understand why some people would consider it.

  41. Michael_X says:

    Hi Tom,

    Agreed, and this is what makes the debate so difficult. Consent rarely exists in a vacuum and where the line between undue duress/bribery falls is very subjective.

    That and the, as yet, unexamined (here) philosophical questions of free will, the nature of consciousness and current neurobiological research findings. 🙂

    Michael

    • Sarah says:

      Yes indeed. Fascinating stuff.

      Of course if free will doesn’t exist, which the current research indicates, then Mistress isn’t in control, either 😉

      All slaves to the mystery of the limbic system…

      Sarah.

    • Tom Allen says:

      Michael, for the sake of argument, can we agree that *in general*, the focus of chastity and OD play is the enjoyment of erotic control and that the overwhelming majority of devices on the market are sold for such purposes?

      And while someone could be “forced” into a device, don’t you think it’s a bit silly to spend $1,000 or (probably) much more, plus have to send the belt back for several fittings? Hell, I’ve been reading chastity groups for years, and I have yet to see anyone say “Yeah, took my Neosteel right out of the box two years ago, and have yet to make an adjustment.” Invariably, those doing long-term wear have had several fittings, have gone back to the manufacturer for tuneups, or have changed over chains, plates, tubes, etc. And *most* users report that they need to spend weeks or months just getting used to wearing the thing. Plus, it has to come off weekly, or a few times a month for cleaning.

      This seems like a hell of a lot of work (not to mention attention!) to keep somebody that you don’t like from touching their penis. Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to dose their meals with saltpeter?

      This is one of the reasons that the “forced” chastity thing ticks me off. I’m not going to claim that it *never* happens, but I think that it’s perfectly reasonable to claim that it’s rare, and that such cases are so extreme, that they have nothing to do with erotic control, and could probably be considered to be cases of abuse.

  42. Inferno says:

    “equipment” – “toys” It’s all the same.

    Take it a step beyound the simple belts…

    I have pierced and stretched genitals for people to the point that you could attache the largest padlocks and nothing short of serious surgery could remove them without a key.

    I used to keep the extra keys at my business just in case theirs got lost.

    Forced? Never. It is all a strange game of the kind for the people involved.

  43. Pingback: Alchemy « Denying Thumper

  44. Pingback: Chastity Device Reviews: The CCS&S Scale « The Edge of Vanilla

  45. Pingback: Chastity Aficionado « The Edge of Vanilla

  46. Pingback: Device or Denial? Apples or Oranges? | The Edge of Vanilla

  47. Main congrats in your debut!!!! Wishing you the most effective together
    with your guide and long term types at the same time!
    My query will be who’re a few of your preferred authors?

Talk to me!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s