My Views on Consent and Its Limits

In January, I encouraged a discussion about consent and its limits. Six months later, it is high time for me to give a summary of the contributions and my own views on the matter. I had not planned on the interval being that long. If we have another such discussion, hopefully I will have the time and inspiration for a follow-up post sooner.

To quickly recap the topic of discussion: the phrase "safe, sane and consensual" is often used in our community to sum up the principles guiding responsible BDSM play. Obviously, for any sexual activity to be morally acceptable, it must be consensual. Consent is what separates sex from rape and BDSM from violent assault. So my question was, what are the necessary conditions that must be fulfilled for us to be able to say that an action was consensual? Is it simply a matter of two people saying "Yes, sure, let's do this!", or do other requirements have to be met as well? Is anyone able to give consent to engage in BDSM activities, or are there groups of people who cannot give consent in the way that is necessary? Furthermore, I raised the example of the infamous "cannibal of Rothenburg" case to illustrate that some extreme actions, like mutilation or killing, should probably be deemed immoral even though they were consensual. So where should we draw the line?

At the time, I did not elaborate on my on views on these questions because I did not want to prejudice you ahead of the discussion. I will talk about them now.

First off, can anyone give consent to engage in BDSM activities? Quite clearly, the answer is no. Children, for instance, are one obvious and important example of a group of people who can not. Children do not have the physical maturity, the emotional maturity or the life experience to consent to a sexual action the way adults can, which is why we have the age of consent. Any sexual action, including BDSM, between an adult and a minor who is below the age of consent is considered immoral for good reason, and is indeed one of the strongest taboos in our culture. Other groups of people who can not give consent to BDSM activities the way an average adult can include those who are mentally handicapped in such a way that their consent can not be taken at face value. Potential causes and examples are too numerous to discuss here, and some individual ones might be incredibly complex in a legal and philosophical sense. But to cut a long story short: if you are an adult who is, for whatever reason, not considered capable of entering legally binding contracts, then you (very probably) don't meet the prerequisites for consenting to BDSM activities, either.

So if you are an adult capable of entering legally binding contracts, and you say "Yes, sure, let's do this!", is that in itself valid consent to a BDSM activity? Again, the answer is obviously no. In order for the consent to be valid, it has to be informed. The question of what, exactly, constitutes "informed" consent is a matter of some complexity. In a BDSM context, I have often seen it raised on forums in regards to severe caning videos like the ones made by producers like Lupus Pictures. Do these models really know what they are getting themselves into? Can anyone ever really consent to such a hard beating, given that they don't know exactly how it is going to be?

The answer is yes and yes. Obviously, you do not need to know in advance exactly how an action is going to feel to you. Otherwise, barring clairvoyance, no one could ever consent to doing anything for the first time. You simply have to have a reasonably clear and accurate idea of what is going to happen and what the risks are. For instance, if I were to consent to a Lupus-style caning in the belief that it really doesn't hurt much at all and that the marks go away within two days, that would not be informed consent because my belief is obviously wrong. If, on the other hand, I would consent to such a caning believing that it hurts a lot and that the marks it produces can take months to disappear, then that is an accurate belief. Having seen a video of such a scene, the velocity of the cane, the reactions of the spankee and so on, might also help me to give consent which we would deem informed.

Finally, there are some actions so extreme that it is intuitively very clear that we should consider them immoral even when they are consensual. The mutilation or killing of a person, as in the "cannibal of Rothenburg" case, is such an example. I do not believe that the consensual killing of a person is always wrong - I believe that euthanasia to shorten the suffering of a terminally ill person is moral, under very specific and strict circumstances, and this in itself is a highly complex issue. But in a BDSM context, we will all agree that the killing of a person is always immoral. What about other, non-fatal injuries, then? Where should we draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not in BDSM?

Some people in the spanking community set the moral limit at drawing blood with a caning or whipping. I myself do not. While I do not play at such a high level of severity very often or suggest that people do it regularly, I do not think we should consider it immoral. As long as people act responsibly (paying attention to hygiene, bandaging the welts etc.), such scenes are less injurious and risky than any number of "rough sports" like boxing or rugby. If we do not consider boxing or rugby immoral, then we should accept canings and whippings even when they draw some blood.

I have said many times on this blog and elsewhere that I draw the line at activities that cause permanent damage. That is still true for most such activities. However, after thinking about it in more depth, I do not believe that we should regard all BDSM activities that cause permanent damage as immoral. Take, for instance, the case of a bottom in a BDSM relationship who wants a branding scar from his (or her) top. While this holds no appeal for me whatsoever, there are some kinksters who find it incredibly hot and for whom it is the ultimate fantasy of showing one's love and affection. I believe that if people genuinely want to do this, have thought about it long and hard and act responsibly to minimize the health risks, then giving someone a scar should be considered morally acceptable. In a way, it is not very different from getting a tattoo, which is also a permanent alteration of the skin (usually bigger in size than a BDSM branding scar would be).

If causing permanent damage is not a clear-cut line between what is acceptable and what is not in BDSM, where else could we draw this line? My view is that we should draw it at permanent disabling damage. That is, permanent damage that hinders you in some significant way. A scar is permanent, but does not really prevent you from doing anything. By contrast, cutting off a person's little finger will make various activities impossible for that person, like playing the piano in a way a person with ten fingers could. Hence, cutting off a person's finger should be considered immoral even when it is consensual. Of course, the question of what, exactly, constitutes "disabling" damage and where we draw the line between it and "non-disabling" damage will not always be easy to answer. There will be cases that straddle the line. But as a general rule, the rule to not cause permanent disabling damage is, I believe, a very clear and morally plausible one.

That, in a nutshell, is my personal view on consent and its limits in BDSM. Interestingly, even though I arrived at it independently, it turns out to be very similar to what German law has to say about consensual injury. In German law, causing an injury is legal when it is consensal and does not violate the so-called "good mores". What, exactly, constitutes "good mores" is a matter of interpretation, but past rulings from German courts have made it clear that you would have to do something pretty drastic, like cutting off a finger or injuring a person in a life-threatening manner, in order for the action to become illegal. The usual BDSM activities, including hard canings and whippings, do not violate the "good mores".

Your comments to the discussion post raised other issues, some of them very interesting. I originally wanted to cover them here as well, but do not want to make the post even longer than it already is. Instead, I put my answers to the points you raised in a comment under the original post. And I would like to give a thank you to all of you who contributed. It was an interesting discussion, and hopefully, we will do it again sometime.

Discussion: Consent and Its Limits

I mentioned in late October that, to try out something new and encourage more reader involvement, I would like to start a series of discussions about topics surrounding spanking and BDSM. Now in the new year, I'm finally getting around to it. Rohrstock-Palast has always been one of the spanking blogs that feature not just pretty pictures and sexy anecdotes, but a fair share of intellectual wankery as well. It seems like a perfect place to engage in conversation about some of the "deeper" questions of BDSM.

This is an experiment of sorts. Hopefully, we will get some comments and an interesting discussion. If there is interest in this kind of thing, I will do it more often in the future.

The first topic I would like you to discuss is consent and its limits. The phrase "safe, sane and consensual" is often used in our community to sum up the principles guiding responsible BDSM play. Obviously, for any sexual activity to be morally acceptable, it must be consensual. Consent is what separates sex from rape and BDSM from violent assault.

So my first question to you is, what are the necessary conditions that must be fulfilled for us to be able to say that an action was consensual? Is it simply a matter of two people saying "Yes, sure, let's do this!", or do other requirements have to be met as well? Is anyone able to give consent to engage in BDSM activities, or are there groups of people who cannot give consent in the way that is necessary?

My second questions regards the limits of consent (if any exist, in your opinion). There are some extreme actions where it seems highly problematic to say that they were morally acceptable simply because they were consensual. Take, for instance, the case of Armin Meiwes, whom the tabloids called the "cannibal of Rothenburg". The case was so bizarre that it made international headlines at the time, so some of you might remember it. Armin Meiwes is a man from the German town of Rothenburg who had had fantasies about slaughtering and eating someone since his teenage years. In 2001, he posted an ad on the internet and found a willing victim named Bernd Jürgen Brandes. With Brandes' consent, Meiwes cut off Brandes' penis and they tried (unsuccessfully, it seems) to cook and eat it. Meiwes later killed Brandes by cutting his throat and proceeded to store Brandes' flesh in a freezer and eat large parts of it in the coming months. He was eventually arrested when he put out another contact ad and someone reported it to the police, who searched his house and found the gruesome evidence of what had happened.

In court, Meiwes' lawyer argued that it was a case of "assisted suicide". In a first trial, Meiwes was sentenced to eight years in prison for manslaughter. In a retrial, he got a life sentence for murder. Indeed, the case is difficult to judge. While the actions perpetrated by Meiwes are horrific, there is no doubt that Brandes willingly and knowingly participated. Online communications between the two and a four-and-a-half hour video which they recorded of the act show that Brandes genuinely wanted to have his penis cut off and that he genuinely wanted to be killed and eaten.

Should we say that Meiwes' and Brands' actions are morally acceptable because they were consensual? I know some people who hold that position, but I myself do not and I suspect that most of you don't, either. It seems intuitively very clear that such actions are immoral and that the mere fact that they were consensual does not justify them. Apparently, then, there is a limit to consent - some actions are immoral despite the fact that they are consensual.

My question is: where do you draw the line? Most of us regard consensual spanking, caning, whipping and the like as morally okay and the consensual killing and cannibalism of the case I mentioned above as immoral. Somewhere between the two, there is a line beyond which actions become immoral even when they are consensual. Where, exactly, do you think that line is? Which types of consensual actions are morally okay and which ones are not?

I have thought about these questions long and hard and I have a clear position on them. I will not tell you about it today, though, because I do not want to prejudice you for the discussion. Please write down your own views if you like, discuss them with others, and I will write a summary of the discussion in another post where I will also give you the details of my own position.

Therapy Revisited

The newest edition of the Wellred Weekly magazine contains an article written by me under the title Therapy?. As some of our long-time readers among you might remember, that was the title of a post on this blog as well back in May 2011.

The basic question of the post was whether our kinky play and our kinky relationships can be used as a kind of "self-therapy". The word "self-therapy" is of course in quotation marks because I don't want to imply that spanking can substitute any real therapy in case of serious issues. What I mean is simply whether the way we live our kink can provide us with things we are missing otherwise and help us to grow.

In my post I also talked about possible risks and downsides of using kink in such a therapeutic way. That led to a very lively discussion in the comment section and inspired the follow-up posts Speculative Questions, Mirror Mirror and My Kinky Therapy. I learned that the question how kink can be used and what possible positive and negative aspects of certain lifestyle choices are is a very emotional field. In my opinion, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't talk about these things. Quite the contrary. But it is very important to make sure to express one's arguments well and not to offend others simply by using misleading wordings.

I think the very interesting discussions which we had here on this blog helped me to make my point much clearer in my Wellred Weekly article. It is basically a rewritten version of all the posts mentioned above, shortened in some aspects but also supplemented with a few new thoughts. So, in case you haven't read the posts here, maybe you are interested in reading the summarized version in the Wellred Weekly magazine. And maybe you will also find some other articles there which catch your interest?!

BDSMers Mentally Healthier Than "Vanillas"?

Do people who are into BDSM have a tendency towards violence? Or are they themselves perhaps the victims of past abuses, which they are now re-enacting as part of their sex lives? If your experience of yourself and of our Scene is anything like mine, your answer to both questions will be a resounding no. Indeed, no scientific study has ever found evidence that kinky people are more likely to suffer from psychological problems or to commit violent or criminal acts than the general population. But prejudices to this effect still persist, and are repeated ad nauseam by the tabloids, the prudes and scare-mongers.

So I felt a considerable amount of "Told you so!" mirth when I heard about a recent study, titled Psychological Characteristics of BDSM Practitioners, which suggests that practitioners of BDSM might actually be psychologically healthier than the norm. The study was conducted by researchers from Tilburg University in the Netherlands and has an interesting genesis. Andreas Wismeijer, the lead researcher, does not usually study sadism or masochism, but the psychology of secrets. A chance encounter with the founder of the largest BDSM forum in the Netherlands convinced him that this scene might make an intriguing study group. So, Wismeijer asked people from the forum to fill out a series of online psychological questionnaires, and compared their answers to those from a control group of people who are not into BDSM. The participants did not know what the studies were about, exactly, only that they were "on human behaviour". In the end, Wismeijer and his fellow researchers had filled-out questionnaires from 902 BDSM practitioners and 434 people from the non-kinky control group.

It turns out that the BDSM practitioners scored higher on a series of measurements of psychological well-being. As summed up in this article on LiveScience:

The new results reveal that on a basic level, BDSM practitioners don't appear to be more troubled than the general population. They were more extroverted, more open to new experiences and more conscientious than vanilla participants; they were also less neurotic, a personality trait marked by anxiety. BDSM aficionados also scored lower than the general public on rejection sensitivity, a measure of how paranoid people are about others disliking them.

People in the BDSM scene reported higher levels of well-being in the past two weeks than people outside it, and they reported more secure feelings of attachment in their relationships, the researchers found.

I also found the following figures interesting:

Of the BDSM practitioners, 33 percent of the men reported being submissive, 48 percent dominant and 18 percent "switch," or willing to switch between submissive and dominant roles in bed. About 75 percent of the female BDSM respondents were submissive, 8 percent dominant and 16 percent switch.

These roles showed some links to psychological health, such that dominants tended to score highest in all quarters, submissives lowest and switches in the middle. However, submissives never scored lower than vanilla participants on mental health, and frequently scored higher, Wismeijer told LiveScience.

So, doms are supposedly healthier than switches, and both are supposedly healthier than subs? Well, I don't know! Kaelah and I both feel very happy and healthy as switches. In any case, it seems that there is a pretty clear division of preference between the genders even among kinksters from the progressive, liberal Netherlands: half the men are tops, and fully three quarters of the women are bottoms. Purely dominant women are the smallest of the groups, even rarer than female switches. Are the ratios similar in other kinky communities in Germany, Britain and the US? From my personal experience, I would guess that, yes, they are probably similar. Will they change as we progress towards a more and more gender-egalitarian society? Maybe so. It's an intriguing question for sure.

One caveat about the results, and the overall conclusions from the lead researcher:

The study is somewhat limited by a self-selecting response pool and by the fact that BDSM practitioners could have been answering in ways to make themselves look better and avoid stigma, Wismeijer said — though the fact that the participants didn't know the reasons for the study ameliorates that concern somewhat. The findings are reason for mental health professionals to take an accepting approach to BDSM practitioners, Wismeijer said.

"We did not have any findings suggesting that people who practice BDSM have a damaged psychological profile or have some sort of psychopathology or personality disorder," he said.

Wismeijer isn't exactly sure why BDSM practitioners might be psychologically healthier than the general public. They tend to be more aware of their sexual needs and desires than vanilla people, he said, which could translate to less frustration in bed and in relationships. Coming to terms with their unusual sexual predilections and choosing to live the BDSM lifestyle may also take hard psychological work that translates to positive mental health, he said.

I think Wismeijer is probably spot-on about that last point. It may be a nice thought that people with an inclination for BDSM are happier than the general population, period, but I am skeptical about this. I assume that kinky people who are "in the closet", and don't have anyone to talk to about their fantasies or any opportunity to live them out, or who are feeling guilt or shame because of the stigma and the negative prejudices associated with BDSM, are usually very unhappy. On the other hand, people who have embraced their kink as something that is healthy, positive and exciting, and who are "out" in the Scene and talking and playing with others like them, will undoubtedly take great satisfaction and happiness from that. Hence, I believe, the results of the study.

So, at the end of the day, perhaps it is not so much about BDSM versus "vanilla", but about whether or not people are able to be themselves and live out their sexual fantasies with a loved one or like-minded friends.

On the Term "Vanilla"

I hardly ever take part in forum debates about BDSM anymore (see my post Sense and Futility of Online Debates for some insight into why), but I still read through them every once in a while. I saw a point in a debate the other day which I would like to bring up here. The issue of contention was whether or not the term "vanilla" for people who are not into BDSM is derogatory.

One user wrote: "I don't like the term 'vanilla' to describe sex, period. It's part of the pattern that I see with some practitioners of alternative lifestyles who want to believe that their choices are not only acceptable, but superior." Another replied: "On the one hand I have the same problems you have with 'vanilla' as a term, but on the other hand I realize the problem is connotation. 'Vanilla' has come to mean 'bland' in spite of the fact that it's a lovely, complex flavor that's primarily derived from the seed pods of a beautiful orchid through an elaborate process. Yes, it's wordy, and it would take quite a bit of work to alter the 'bland' connotation in peoples' minds, but I think those who are genuinely 'vanilla' should wear the term with pride." A third user added: "Yeah, but anytime the phrase 'vanilla sex' is thrown around, it's in opposition to 'exciting kinky sex'. There's really no way to read it non-perjoratively. All subcultures need to continuously remarginalize themselves in a opposition to normativity in order to maintain status as 'awesome alternative lifestyle'." People in the discussion also pointed out that BDSM practitioners usually like "vanilla" sex as well, and that the boundaries between "vanilla" and "kinky" are fluid instead of the two being a rigid dichotomy.

Personally, I do not feel that the term "vanilla" is inherently derogatory. I frequently use it on this blog as shorthand for people who are not into BDSM, and I do not mean anything bad by it. That said, I am aware that there are people in the BDSM community who use the term disparagingly. Over the years, I have had the misfortune of meeting some of these snotty, big-headed "We are sooo special!" kinksters. You have probably met them yourself. I never liked them. I feel that they are compensating for insecurities and inferiority complexes with their ostentatious looking down on "normal" people, and with some of them, I wonder whether they are really into BDSM or just jumping on the bandwagon of a "cool", controversial subculture. However, those snotty kinksters are a minority, and I don't think that we should shy away from the term "vanilla" simply because a few people use it in a derogatory manner.

A more valid objection to the term "vanilla" is that it really isn't very clear. What is "vanilla sex", exactly? Is it only sex in the missionary position with the lights out? Or does it include, say, oral sex, which is a bit more risqué, but enjoyed by a large number of people and thus statistically "normal"? What about anal sex, is that vanilla? For quite a few men and women, it most assuredly isn't. So how many people do there have to be who are into a certain sexual practice in order for it to be eligible as "vanilla"? Half the population, maybe? If that is so, bondage might be a part of "vanilla" sex - if certain studies are to be believed, fifty percent or more of the respondents have tried it out at least once. Heck, bondage is probably more "vanilla" than anal sex.

There really isn't a clear definition of "vanilla sex", neither is there a clear boundary between it and practices that are usually deemed "kinky". And there is the fact that "kinky" people usually enjoy "vanilla sex" as well - Kaelah and I certainly do. Despite all this, I still hold the opinion that "vanilla" is a useful term. When you come to think of it, most of the words we use are not very clearly defined. That is just the way human language works. But we do know what the words mean from their context. It's like that with "vanilla" as well. I simply use it as a short-hand for people who do not engage in BDSM practices regularly, and I think it works just fine as such. So, in the unlikely case that there are any "vanilla" people reading this blog (why, I wonder?): see, as I said, I don't mean anything bad with the term. It may be the most popular ice cream, but it is nonetheless a pretty complex flavour, so I don't see anything boring about it at all. Glad we could clear that up.

What about you, my fellow kinksters? What are your views on the term "vanilla"? Do you find it derogatory, or do you see nothing wrong with it?

Two Texts on BDSM and Psychiatry

I am hard pressed for time this week and did not know whether I would be able to write a post. But as luck would have it, I found two interesting texts I can reference.

I was reading an online discussion about ethics that started out completely unrelated to BDSM, but then had someone bringing in BDSM as a topic of ethics. Some people propagated the usual ignorance, equating BDSM to violence and claiming that anyone who is into "such crap" must have had a traumatic experience during childhood. One participant in the debate, who was apparently kinky himself, kindly pointed out that this is utter nonsense. I did not get involved myself. The discussion was several years old already, and even if it had been current, I tend to not waste my time with such matters anymore.

However, in reading through that discussion, I found two interesting texsts on BDSM and psychiatry. One is Psychology & BDSM: Pathology or Individual Difference? by Margaret Nichols, a psychologist and fellow kinkster, who delves into the history of psychotherapy and sexual minorities:

In the area of sexuality, psychology has been particularly harsh and justified particularly brutal treatments for those considered "sexual deviants." Through the first half of the twentieth century, girls who had "excessive sex drive", e.g. masturbated regularly, were considered abnormal and might be subjected to clitoridectomies; until the 1970s gay people could be committed to mental institutions by parents; and even today electro-shock aversion therapy and so-called "chemical castration" are considered acceptable psychiatric interventions for sexual paraphilias - among which are included Fetishism, Sexual Masochism, Sexual Sadism, Transvestic Fetishism, and other practices near and dear to some of us.

Why does psychiatry even concern itself with sexual behavior that is consensual and adult? Why label any such behavior "sick"? Urban anthropologist and founding LSM member Dr. Gayle Rubin has described the way society views sex by classifying sexual behavior as part of the "Charmed Circle of Sex" versus the "Outer Limits". Basically, society likes sex to be straight, married, monogamous, private, not-forhire, procreative, and vanilla. Some BDSMers manage to violate each and every one of those proscriptions - sometimes all at once! According to Rubin, society does its best to eradicate or suppress behavior on the "outer limits". We do this in several ways, including social and religious disapproval, legislation around sexuality, and classifying behavior as psychologically "sick" versus "healthy". Enter the role of psychiatry.

Mental health theories have changed. Masturbation is okay; women can be sexual; even homosexuality is no longer a mental illness. But psychiatry still pathologizes BDSM, and I maintain that this contributes to shame, secrecy, isolation, and selfloathing within the BDSM community. More concretely, it justifies laws criminalizing S/M behavior, legal decisions to deny child custody to kinky people, and discrimination in job and housing areas. So it’s more important than you think to fight the psychiatric classification of kinky behavior.

Nichols goes on to make a case for why it is unwarranted and harmful to classify an inclination for BDSM and assorted fetishes as "paraphilias", argues that traditional psychological theories of sexuality from Krafft-Ebing to Freud have been "pretty dismal", but still exert influence today, and proposes an alternate view labelled "the paradoxical view of sex", which holds that "there is no reason to consider sexual behavior pathological unless concrete evidence of lifethreatening or similar horrendous harm exists, or unless it is nonconsensual (by definition including children as nonconsensual)".

The other text I wanted to bring to your attention is Bias in Psychotherapy with BDSM Clients and BDSM in Psychotherapy: A Culturally Aware Curriculum by Heather Powers:

Bondage, Discipline, and Sadomasochism (BDSM) is a sexual orientation and behavior often misunderstood by both the psychological community and the public. Although extreme and obsessive BDSM activities may point to a paraphilic diagnosis, the majority of people involved in BDSM are well adjusted, successful and productive members of society. It is important that the mental health community have proper tools for differentiating between paraphilic disorders and healthy sexual diversity. Paper one examines the historical and present experiences of BDSM participants as a stigmatized sexual minority. Paper two addresses twelve clinical guidelines for providing culturally sensitive care to BDSM clients. These guidelines may be used as a three segment class for mental health providers interested in working with BDSM oriented clients.

In Powers' thesis, I found the various surveys and studies she cites of particular interest, and the insight they provide into the variety of people's motivations for BDSM, the variety of BDSM practices and lifestyles, and the fact that an inclination for BDSM does not point towards mental illness, past abuse or difficulty with "normal" sex, as is sometimes assumed. All of which is in accordance with my own experiences and impressions of both my own kink and the kinks of others I have met in the BDSM community.

BDSM - Erotic Spanking - DD

In the newest edition of her Monday Morning Fika, Ana welcomed Fabian Black (aka Libby), author of M/M DD fiction as her guest. As you know, I am always thrilled to read about the topic of M/M on a blog which isn't exclusively for male gays, since I am of the opinion that the spanking community isn't inclusive enough when it comes to M/M.

In her guest article, Fabian Black raised a very different question, though, which was also discussed vividly in the comment section. I wanted to write a comment, too, but finally decided to publish a full blog post about the topic instead. It deals with the question about the relationship between BDSM, erotic spanking and domestic discipline.

Among other things, Fabian Black wrote: "In my opinion, which doesn’t stand for much I grant you, stories featuring DD tend to get less respect and have a lower profile than almost any other kind of fiction. It doesn’t matter what the pairing is, be it M/F, M/M, F/F or F/M, if it contains domestic discipline then it’s viewed with a faint derision. BDSM is considered the pinnacle of power exchange fiction. It gets a much higher profile and is somehow legitimised by its clear sexual focus and content, perhaps because society as a whole is more sexualised than it has ever been. Sex sells. BDSM has lots of sex. In comparison DD stories seem to be considered not just as a poor cousin to BDSM, but a relative so far removed they might as well be in exile."

I find Fabian Black's comment about the different profiles of BDSM and DD stories very interesting, because I often have the feeling that in parts of the spanking and in the very big DD blogging community, it is exactly the other way round. Spanking as a matter of discipline or at least pure discipline and erotic spanking is fine whereas BDSM is something people don't want anything to do with because it has a negative connotation for them, supposedly being all about strange fetish sex and leather and chains. That is just a side note and not the main point of today's post, though.

In the final paragraph of her post, Fabian Black concluded: "I don’t consider myself to be a writer of erotica, and maybe there are other authors of DD that feel the same way. I write literary fiction that just happens to feature elements of discipline and while it has some sensual elements it doesn’t fit the recognised criteria for erotica and certainly not for BDSM. If a reader finds a book listed under BDSM or spanking erotica then they’re going to expect certain things, such as leather scenarios along with whips and chains and other toys, and sex, lots of it, in amazing detail. BDSM is sex oriented, erotica is sex oriented. My stories don’t fit in those boxes because they don’t focus on sex and nor can they be crammed into the straightforward vanilla romance box, because of the discipline element. DD is kind of out on a limb. It’s a shame. There’s BDSM, there’s erotic spanking and then there’s DD fiction. Each has their own merits, but they’re essentially different things and deserve their own niche."
 
Renee Rose also highlighted the difference which she sees between BDSM and spanking / DD in her comment: "so great to read about M/M DD and I also seek to distinguish spanking from BDSM fiction. I find sometimes that BDSM readers don’t “get” discipline. As a spanko, I find it strange to hear that there are spankos out there who struggle with discipline vs erotic spanking. I’m way more turned on by discipline, but that’s the funny part isn’t it? I’m more *turned on* by it, so there’s pretending it isn’t sexual."

The thing is, I am a spanko who (in a certain way which I am going to explain in more detail) doesn't "get" the discipline aspect, either, and feels closer to the world of BDSM than to the world of DD. In my view, erotic spanking and DD are two very different things, not necessarily when it comes to the fantasy aspect, but certainly when we are talking about real life concepts. Like Renee Rose, I enjoy those fictional scenarios the most which are purely formal and don't contain any vanilla sex. Like her, what I enjoy about the stories or videos, though, is that they turn me on. So, in the end, it is all about sex. Which is not (necessarily) the case when it comes to real DD (not fun discipline role-playing), as Fabian Black pointed out in her post.

Now, first of all, even my fantasies usually don't involve domestic discipline. I normally prefer my fantasy characters to have a rather formal relationship, like teacher/student or captain/cadet. And I like the power exchange to be only temporary. For instance, the captain who disciplines a cadet once was a cadet himself, and subjected to the same kind of discipline, and he knows that some day in the future his protégé will be a leader in charge of the next generation of cadets. When it comes to couples and spanking, I prefer erotic spankings or scenarios which involve switching rather than a permanent power dynamic. So, even my spanking fantasies don't really fit to the typical DD scenario, even though I like formal scenarios and discipline settings.

When it comes to the real thing, the gap gets even wider. Because the idea of real life discipline in a partnership has about as much appeal to me as, for example, the idea of a real school in which consenting adults are subjected to CP for discipline reasons. The concept of consensual CP for real transgressions and discipline reasons in a love relationship completely escapes me, given my own needs, preferences and view on love relationships. I plan to write a separate post covering that subject in more detail one day. But in short, the idea of suffering in order to be released from feelings of guilt doesn't go together with my personal ideal of unconditional self-love and self-forgiveness which I am trying to achieve. And since I am highly intrinsically motivated, I can not relate to the idea of needing to be externally motivated to do things which are good for me through the threat of punishment, either.

The different attitudes also show when it comes to the typical male and female roles in relationships (or stories) which feature a (male) head of household. There was another post on Ana's blog a while ago about feminism and (M/F) DD, written by Cara Bristol. Among other things she wrote: "But getting back to M/F couples, even those spouses with the most egalitarian marriages still follow some traditional gender roles. Look at couples driving down the highway. Who’s usually behind the wheel? The man. Which gender usually stays home with a sick child? The woman. Who is considered the primary wage earner? The husband. What does the bride get at her shower? Gifts for the home or sexy lingerie. What does the groom get at his bachelor party? Drunk. When a woman has a high-powdered, high-paying career she usually marries a spouse with the same. She does not seek out a trophy househusband. […] And even though I’m a feminist, I like strong, macho aggressive men. And I damn sure like reading about them. As a fantasy, being swept off one’s feet by and surrendering to a strong, macho guy ranks pretty high on the list. Because a little tiny part inside wants to be cared for. Wants that Cinderella story."

I had to smile when I read Cara Bristol's little list because not a single point she mentioned (which, as I agree, are still quite common even today) applies to Ludwig and me. And I am neither into macho men, nor do I dream of being Cinderella. That said, I very much like the idea of having a strong, highly intelligent, independent knight at my side. It's just that I don't want to be the princess whom he rescues. I want to be his companion. I definitely expect my partner to catch me if I fall. But I want that to be mutual. That's why neither the stereotypical M/F DD fictional story nor the accounts written by real life M/F DD couples have all too much in common with my life or my kinky fantasies.

The same goes for the F/M variant, because I absolutely can't imagine to live in a relationship in which I am in charge all the time. I want a partner who follows his goals and treats me kindly without any need to be externally motivated. I neither want to be a permanent caretaker, nor do I want a man whose biggest pleasure is to serve me and submit to me.

That's why I, as a fan and practitioner of erotic spanking / CP, feel closer to the wider world of BDSM than to the world of (real life) domestic discipline. Of course I know that there are many spankos who practise both, erotic spanking and real life discipline, and I often have fantasies and interests in common with them. But the world of pure domestic discipline doesn't seem to have much in common with my very personal world of erotic spanking. While they both involve spanking / CP, the philosophies as well as the fantasies and / or life-style choices behind them are very different in my view.

Freedom of Choice

A few days ago, I had a very strange dream. I was going to school again. The school didn't look anywhere like the real schools I went to, though, and I was still the person I am today with all my experiences and knowledge. But the strangest thing was the sports test which awaited me at that school. It consisted of a 15 strokes caning which one had to endure with a peeled rattan cane! Each stroke one took led to a better final mark.

Now, in a way one could say that this must be a dream scenario for me. An at least semi-consensual scene (one could of course refuse to take a single stroke and instead accept a bad mark), and not about punishment but about endurance and bravery. My mind didn't process the scenario like a kinky fantasy, though. Instead, it felt to me like a real vanilla incident. There was no real action in this dream, either. I just saw the cane lying there and contemplated what to do.

I wasn't always good at sports, even though I tried very hard. So, my first thought was of course that I had to take all 15 strokes in order to get a good mark. Besides, I had done much more challenging 50 stroke canings. And I couldn't let my vanilla classmates beat me in my very personal discipline, in my personal lifestyle. The first strokes couldn't be so severe, anyway, I thought - after all, they had to assume that the recipients had never been caned before.

Despite of all these motivating thoughts, however, I was scared. This was nothing I really wanted to do. I had to do it in order to avoid a bad mark and the feeling of having screwed it all up. Theoretically I had a choice, but not accepting the caning would have had negative consequences. I knew that I would do it because the consequences of not doing it seemed worse than the potential negative experience which the caning could bring. I also knew that I might not stop it, even if the experience should turn out worse than I thought. Because giving in would have made me feel worse than pushing myself through the negative experience. Knowing that I might not respect my limits because of the pressure that was put upon me from my environment and, even more, the pressure I put on myself made the situation even more scary.

Of course my dream wasn't realistic at all, but it reminded me of some situations which we can come across in the kinky community where the question of whether one is really giving one's free consent is more complex than it might look like at first sight. Situations in which we theoretically have the freedom of choice, but social or personal pressure does make saying no difficult because there might be negative consequences with that decision.

Let me just mention a few examples to illustrate what I am talking about. Probably the most common situation is when someone is asked to play at a spanking party, but doesn't really want to, for instance because of having played so much already and being tired or maybe because he or she doesn't feel completely comfortable with the person who is asking or with the kind of play that person prefers or maybe just because not being in the right mood for play right at that moment. How easy is it to say no in such a situation? Especially if the person in question isn't any kind of weirdo, but maybe a very nice person whom one likes on a personal level and whom it has taken a lot of courage to ask that question.

Or how about a play situation in a group of friends, during which one of them suddenly realizes that this isn't going in the right direction and starts feeling bad while the others seem to be enjoying the scene a lot. Adele once wrote about that topic in the context of using safewords. Who would really plug up the courage to safeword in such a situation and potentially ruin the scene for their friends? Joining a spontaneous scene at a party and suddenly realizing that a person one doesn't want to play with is joining in as well could be another critical situation.

Situations like that can not only occur at parties or during scenes with friends, though. They can also happen in relationships. The situation one can most easily think of is when one partner is in the mood for kinky play and the other is not. Or when one partner realizes during a scene that he or she doesn't feel good with how the scene turns out. There is another example, though, about which I have been thinking for quite a while now. I am planning to discuss the following example in more detail in a separate post one day, but I want to give it a short mention here because in my opinion it fits very well.

When I read M/F domestic discipline blogs, what strikes me is that it often seems to be the women who come up with the idea of establishing a head of household. They often seem to be the ones who tell their husbands that they need a strong leader and want them to take over. Now, Ludwig has been in the role of a mentor with a kinky friend once for only about half a year and he told me that having to be in control all the time was eating up all his energy after a while. Which fits to my observation that there are lots of complaints by women living in M/F domestic discipline relationships about their husbands not managing to keep up the role of the always-in-control head of household all the time and not being consistent and consequent in their behaviour. Now, my opinion is that no one can be a leader 24/7 without suffering from burn-out sooner or later. Still, many men seem to accept becoming the head of household at their wives' request, even though that position seems to cost them a lot of energy. The question that comes up then, is, how big is their freedom of choice here really? I mean, which husband who truly loves his wife would refuse to help her when she tells him that she needs him to take over (often in order to save their relationship)? Especially since many women in M/F domestic discipline relationships admit to losing their respect for their husbands when they don't act like the head of household, a role which in several people's opinion is a "natural" or maybe even "God-given" one. In my view, this puts a huge social pressure on men to accept this role, even if they wouldn't have chosen it on their own.

And last but not least, there is of course the professional spanking and film-making business. How about a model who absolutely isn't in the right mood for a certain scene at the day of a shoot? Or a professional spanker or spankee who has a session with a client and finds out that she (or he) absolutely doesn't feel comfortable with that client? At which point does one cancel a professional contract?

I guess one can think of many more possible examples. My dream was very realistic in one way. I am very scared of getting into a situation kink-wise where I don't really feel up to a certain kind of play or experience, but can't easily say no. That's why I, for instance, generally inform people in advance that I usually don't play with anyone except Ludwig at parties. That way I can take my time without disappointing anyone's expectations. And on the rare occasions where I am in the mood for a group play, I can still join in later if the others are okay with that. The fear of having to do something kink-related which isn't my cup of tea or without being in the right mood also affects my video-making. It is one of the reasons why I could never become a paid spanking model and why it is very important for me to talk about all scenes and limits in advance on the rare occasions in which I participate in making planned spanking clips that are more than just private fun clips featuring Ludwig and myself only.

How about you? Is freedom of choice as important for you as it is for me when it comes to spanking and kinky experiences? And have you been in a situation where it was difficult for you to say no? I am curious to hear about your opinions and experiences!

The Golden Rule

(A typical caning scene at Lupus Pictures...)

In the discussion on my last post about Football and Masochism some very interesting topics came up which made me think again about tolerance and ethical behaviour. Both Ludwig and I subscribe to the view that there are indeed universal moral values which, as Ludwig explained, "can be derived from human reason according to our best understanding of our individual and collective needs. What that means in practice is another long, complex discussion, but in my view, the so-called 'golden rule' is a good starting point and will take us quite a long way: one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. And one should not treat others as one would not like others to treat oneself. Many philosophers have developed variations of this theme in different time periods and cultures, from Confucius to Kant."

Now, the golden rule might be a bit misguiding at first. For example, it doesn't mean that I can slap unsuspecting people on their bottoms just because I would find it funny if someone did that to me. One has to transfer the moral issue to a more abstract level at first. The question isn't: Am I okay with a stranger playfully slapping my bottom and can I therefore do the same to others? The question is: Am I okay with a stranger doing something to me that I don't expect, haven't agreed upon beforehand and maybe don't like, just because that person likes it? I guess the answer is simple.

Therefore my guideline for tolerance is the following: In my view, open-mindedness means accepting others as they are and letting them live as they want to, as long as their actions don't violate the health or freedom of others. If the latter is the case, limits have to be set and compromises have to be made. The problem: In my opinion many people aren't capable of distinguishing between personal preferences / limits / tastes and ethical values. Those people often use the former as a base for moral judgements, stating that those who don't have similar preferences or who do things that are beyond their personal limits are behaving immorally. Today I have come across a discussion of an age-old topic on Chross's message board which sadly again demonstrates this issue.

(...and the resulting marks.)

The original commenter mglfrps writes: "I enjoy spanking art, stories, photos very much. They are a big part of my erotic fantasies. However, I like them to be cute, naughty, clever, funny, sexy like the cartoon art of spankings in the Humorama magazines of the '50's and the Betty Page spanking images of that era, too. I detest the Lupus type of spanking images. I hate to see pretty girls' pretty bottoms covered with welts and perhaps about to bleed out. I may have some grudges against some women but I believe if you enjoy seeing the deep purple bruises and the blood red caning marks, you should seek psychiatric help very soon and do not act out on those fantasies, please." He later adds: "The most important point I am trying to make i [sic] that there is a broad spectrum in the world of BDSM. The most violent end of the spectrum scares me about who is enjoying depictions of rape and real torture and whether or not this is an outlet for those feelings or a stirring up of those feelings that will lead to real world horrors."

In another comment woronov adds: "I wholly share mglfrps tastes. In fact, I could have written his first post myself. Was mglfrps unduly judgemental? I'm not so sure. I was reminded of a joke by Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle: 'Yesterday I saw a YouTube video of Saddam Hussein's execution. Is there ANYTHING on the Internet I won't masturbate to?' Let's say you are turned on by the idea of killing and eating someone. Could you find a willing partner? Yes, you can. In fact, it happened (in Germany, as I recall) a few years ago. Both partners were consenting adults, but I can't help wondering whether, as he was being killed, the victim had second thoughts. Yes, maybe the idea of being eaten was extremely arousing for him, but at some point he must have realised that being alive is an essential part of enjoyment. People who desire to inflict extreme pain on someone else, whether that someone consents or not, could be in need of treatment."

I don't have to tell you that Ludwig is into severe canings and that he has worked as a top for Lupus Pictures as well as for Mood Pictures. He has also done similarly severe scenes as a bottom. I also don't have to tell you that I have been struggling with severe scenes and sometimes still do. For example, I would probably rather not watch the Lupus Pictures film from which I have taken the pictures for this post. But, at the same time, I have done two canings of the same severity myself, one as a private experiment in order to develop an informed opinion about the subject and one for Pandora's site Dreams of Spanking. Ludwig and I can both testify that there is no permanent harm done by those severe canings. That said, the scenes are definitely challenging, as I experienced during my first try. But if the participants know their personal limits, their possible reactions and how to respond to them, it is very safe and it can also be a very fulfilling experience. I haven't topped Ludwig for a similarly severe scene, yet, but we have already agreed on such a scene in the future.

(The scientific proof - severe BDSM play causes violence.)

Unfortunately, both commenters mentioned above obviously haven't taken the time to learn more about the topic which they are discussing and to develop an informed opinion. Let's try to put emotional reactions on the topic aside for a moment and see how far the golden rule takes us when looking at some of their arguments.

The first main argument against severe scenes which both commenters give is that severe marks don't suit their personal taste and that they don't want to see any stuff like that. So, the basic question is: Do I want to live in a world where it is a basic moral rule that people are prohibited to do and publish anything that doesn't suit another person's personal taste and makes that person feel uncomfortable? I guess I don't even have to give a serious answer to that question. Even if one uses the term "the majority" instead of "another person", that only means that the tastes of minorities would be oppressed by the taste of the majority. And, at least in many countries, that means goodbye kink (yes, even nice pink bottoms), homosexuality and so on. You get the same result when applying my rule for open-mindedness and ask: Does the depiction of severe canings between consenting adults violate the health or freedom of others? Again the answer is no, because one can easily turn away if one doesn't want to look at the pictures or watch the videos.

The second main argument is that both, the tops who dish out severe canings like that and the bottoms who consent to taking the canings, are mentally ill. The basic accusation against the tops: They are women-haters (of course, as so often, only the M/F constellation is considered here) who want to hurt and torture women and might even proceed to non-consensual rape and torture if severe forms of BDSM play aren't prohibited and if they don't seek out mental help. Okay, let me swallow my anger concerning the horrible accusations made against people like Ludwig and me for a moment, and let's analyse that argument rationally.

Fact is that there is a psychological difference between pathological sadism (the one that some psychopaths are diagnosed with) and affectionate erotic sadism (the one that is involved in kinky play) which I explained in detail in this post. The latter isn't considered to be a mental illness. Personal preferences and the severity of one's play don't influence that medical classification, as long as the play is consensual and no permanent bodily harm is done. As for the aspect of being women-haters or men-haters: Ludwig definitely isn't one. Many others whom I have met personally aren't (I recommend reading Ludwig's behind-the-scenes report from his Lupus Pictures shoot). And I am not a men-hater, either, despite the fact that I can enjoy seeing male spankees at the receiving end of severe canings. I can't rule out the possibility that some pathological sadists watch kinky porn, too, like paedophiles who look at boyscout brochures, but that doesn't mean that kinky people who do that kind of scenes or producers who film them are dangerous or doing anything morally objectionable.

(Picture of a typical women-hater and his helpless victims.)

The third part of the argument, which is that the depiction of violence leads to violent behaviour, was disproved in different studies as well. And non-consensual fantasies don't equal the wish to make any real non-consensual experiences, either, as Pandora wonderfully explained in her post about women's rape fantasies. So, the basic question here is: Do I want to live in a world where the prohibition of certain things and the classification of people as being mentally ill and dangerous is based on emotional judgements of people, even if they contradict the results of scientific studies? For me, the answer is again clear.

 

The general tactics and the arguments in the thread mentioned above are typical for the kinds of discussions in which people try to sell their personal preferences as a valid base for moral judgements: Totally inappropriate comparisons (severe canings and cannibalism), attempts to raise fear with completely unproven assumptions (people could become violent because of severe BDSM porn), the presentation of totally wrong conclusions (Lupus could be censored because of their violent movies, so why not prevent that by self-censorship) and pseudo sympathy (hey, in a way I am mentally ill as well, I don't judge you for having those desires, you just have to suppress them) plus pseudo solutions (why not fake severe canings, then everyone would be happy).

By the way, the golden rule isn't a base for moral arbitrariness. Quite the contrary, it can lead to very strict moral statements as well if necessary. Another issue briefly mentioned in the thread was spanking children. In his comment fatherjim states: "Look, I don't like ANYONE hitting kids at all! PERIOD! That said, I will not call those who do sick and in need of a psychiatrist lest they escalate and possibly kill their child!" When it comes to spanking children, that certainly isn't a consensual activity. And scientific studies have proven that spanking children can cause permanent mental harm and that other ways of raising children can be just as effective without involving the same risk. So, the question here is: Do I want to live in a world where defenceless minors are subjected to painful experiences that can cause permanent mental harm (without any scientific proof that they do help these children more in other aspects than other forms of education)? For me, the answer is simple, which is why I am strictly against spanking children, and that not only when there is any acute danger for their lives.

Well, I don't think that rational analyses, informed opinions and the golden rule will ever be able to replace pseudo-moralistic discussions based on emotions, fear and personal taste. But if they did, our world would be a more tolerant and at the same time safer place, in my opinion. Luckily, there are people who use the informed, analytic approach. Some commenters in the original thread did (at least partially). In my opinion that's all one can ask for.

Could You Do Without?

A while ago, Pixie raised the intriguing question how fetish flexible her readers are. What she particularly wanted to know was: "I am wondering how willing you are to explore beyond your own particular fetish interests to meet the needs of someone else." As I wrote my comment, I realised that this question led to another topic, one that I find very intriguing and important as well. This is what I wrote:

The most important thing in a partnership for Ludwig and me is openness and honesty. So, we openly tell each other about our erotic fantasies and fetishes. Since making one’s partner happy is a fulfilling experience per se, we of course try to make each other’s dreams come true. As long as there are no negative images connected with a certain scenario or fetish, why not try it, at least once? Maybe it even becomes a shared fantasy or fetish over time. If one of us is in the mood to try out a certain fantasy, the other often develops fitting fantasies, too.

But if one of us has the feeling that trying out a certain scene or fetish could lead to a negative experience, we say it as well. I have to admit that living out a fantasy knowing that my partner feels really uncomfortable with it hasn’t got any appeal for me, anyway. I prefer not to try it in that case.

Ludwig and I are lucky, though, because our desires fit quite well. Of course we had to make some compromises, but so far we have always found a solution that works for both of us. When it comes to spanking scenes, I think we are both very open as tops and have more hard limits (for example concerning scenarios) when playing as bottoms. But luckily, our hard limits (spanking and otherwise) don’t affect each other’s core fantasies, which means that neither of us has to do without a core kink.

That said, I am not sure whether I could live with a partner whose sexual desires and kinks were so different from mine that we didn’t have much in common and most sexual activities would consist of one partner doing something just because it was the other partner’s fetish.

I guess that I would always have signed that last paragraph. But some years ago I wouldn't have assumed that spanking could be a part of my sex-life with a partner at all. For me, my kinky fantasies were just that, fantasies, something to play out in my head only. The thought of bringing any of those fantasies to life never really occurred to me. Consequently, being into spanking wasn't a necessary quality for a potential mate.

Ludwig told me that for him it was quite similar. Even after he had found out that the thing which he was into was called spanking, he still was quite happy with only fantasising about spanking and watching videos. And even when he decided to try it for real, Ludwig never expected to find a woman who shared his kink. His idea of an ideal partnership involved love, trust and shared interests, but not erotic spanking. Finding a woman who was also okay with him watching spanking clips from time to time was the most perfect image he could think of.

Now that we have both lived in a love relationship that involves spanking and BDSM for three years, things have changed, though. With the knowledge that this is indeed possible, the idea of sharing one's life with a mate who doesn't share this particular core kink seems much less desirable than it did before. As a matter of fact, we both can't imagine living with a partner who doesn't share our kink any more.

How about you? Is erotic spanking just a fantasy for you or something that you want to do for real? Are you maybe still looking for Mr or Mrs Right? Does he or she have to be kinky? Or are you maybe already living in a relationship? Does your mate share your kink? If no, how do you deal with that? And if yes, how important is that shared kink for you? Has your view about love relationships and the question of sharing one's fetishes with one's mate changed over time? We are curious to hear from you!

Strength

(Not exactly the kind of strength I'm striving for.)

I've been thinking a lot about the topic of strength lately and what being a strong person means to me. The people I admire the most for being strong characters aren't those who demonstrate their power or intellectual superiority over others. In my opinion, the strongest people are those who know about their strengths (and their weaknesses) and who are at peace with themselves and therefore don't feel the need to prove anything to anyone. I think one recognizes those people from their behaviour and attitude. They have clear opinions and can support them with good arguments, they like to exchange ideas and to learn new things, but at the same time they don't feel the urge to convince others that their opinion is the right one, and they can accept others as they are. I know a few people who come close to that ideal.

I aspire to become like that, too, but I'm definitely still very far away from it. That made me think about what self-confidence and inner peace or the lack thereof can mean in the context of kink. In my opinion, living out my kinky fantasies and being a part of the kinky online community have both increased my self-confidence and given me strength. But from time to time, kinky activities also remind me of my insecurities. I sometimes become aware of them when I'm thinking of kinky play, when I'm reading blogs or when I'm looking at the Scene as a peer group environment.

(That's more like it: a beautiful place to find inner peace and balance.)

I am a very competitive person, which isn't a bad trait per se. But I know that it can also sometimes drive me too far. In my opinion, there can be quite a competition between bottoms at times, to take harder spankings or to play out more edgy scenarios. Pushing one's limits from time to time and showing off a bit in front of others is of course okay, but there is always a certain risk of going too far. I know that with my brave girl kink I am in danger of falling into that trap. That's why I always think twice before taking part in any play that might push my boundaries and make sure that I don't get myself into any competitive situations when it comes to spanking play.

There are also times when I sense a certain lack of self-confidence in tops. I haven't experienced that in any real life play, but it is a feeling I sometimes get when watching spanking clips. With some tops, I have got the feeling that they try to improve their self-confidence by showing how tough, merciless and cool they are. As with bottoms, a bit of showing off is of course absolutely okay. But if I have the feeling that a top wants to make a mark as a strong guy or woman at the expense of the bottom he or she is topping, that really scares me off.

As a reader of blogs and a member of the spanking Scene, I sometimes feel my own insecurities as well. While I have developed a good self-confidence in many areas of life, two fields on which I am still quite insecure are peer groups and femininity. When it comes to women in general, and female bottoms in particular, submission and vulnerability often seem to play an important role on spanking blogs, and they seem to attract many readers. Now, I always was the geeky type and I'm definitely neither submissive nor am I looking for a man who picks me up when I'm feeling vulnerable. Of course, I expect the latter from Ludwig in our relationship, but as something mutual. And I know that Ludwig neither wants a submissive woman, nor a woman who is permanently soft and vulnerable. Still, I sometimes feel threatened by all the writing about submission and vulnerability because it makes me scared that as a woman who doesn't fulfil these requirements, I might not be attractive or feminine enough.

(Amelia-Jane Rutherford - feminine, gracious and intelligent:

an impressive combination. Picture courtesy of Restrained Elegance.)

It's the same with body sizes. While publishing pictures of myself has made me much more self-confident about my appearance than I was before, I still tend to get scared by all the photos of beautiful women which I come across when surfing spanking blogs. My own body figure doesn't quite match my personal preferences and that can make me feel a bit insecure at times. Again, I have a clear idea of how I would like to handle things, it just doesn't always work that way. As I wrote a while ago on Pandora's blog:

I’ve got a preference for small, round bottoms, slim figures and slender legs. But my own figure is different. My hips are much broader than my waist, my bottom is bigger and not really round and (like many women) I’m suffering from cellulitis on my legs. The thing is, I could starve myself to death and it wouldn’t change a thing about my waist to hip ratio or the cellulitis.

For me the key is to stay true to myself, in several ways. First, I don’t deny my own preferences and I don’t try to change them forcibly. They are there and I think that’s okay. When I’m taking pictures or making clips, I try to present myself in a position that makes my body look beautiful in my own eyes and a light that reduces the visibility of the cellulitis, because I feel sexier then. And in my opinion there is nothing wrong with that, either, especially because the pictures make me feel good about my body.

At the same time I try to take good care of my body (without obsessing about the parts I’m not so happy with) and to feel happy the way I am. And I am aware that others have very different preferences. Ludwig, for example, likes my waist to hip ratio and he doesn’t care about the cellulitis at all. For him, I am beautiful the way I am, and it is wonderful to know that. 

Now I just wished that the knowledge of this would take away the self-doubt completely, so that I could watch spanking pics without comparing myself to other women and being scared if I find them more attractive. I assume that comparing oneself to others is a streak that is very inherent to human beings, though, so I doubt that I will ever get completely rid of that. But maybe I will become more relaxed about the fact that there are other women whom I find more beautiful than myself.

(A scene I would love to witness at a play event. 
Picture courtesy of Spanking Central.)

The third and last aspect which makes me think about my inner strength or lack thereof is the Scene as a peer group. I often felt unwell in peer group environments, especially among women. In the spanking scene, though, I now have met many people, among them maybe even more women than men, whom I like very much and whom I feel close to. But again sometimes my insecurity shows. It often happens when I read about big play events. Sometimes I would like to join in because I like the people involved and would like to share time and happy experiences with them.

But then, my kinky fantasies (and my limits) usually don't really fit. I'm not very fond of school play, and when I think about the three things I would like to do the most, it comes down to: watching M/M scenes, bottoming to Ludwig (I'm very picky when it comes to being topped) and topping men. These preferences simply don't really fit to the action at most of the big play events I have heard of. And that sometimes causes me to feel insecure and a bit sad because it makes me think that I don't fit well enough to be a "real" part of the peer group. Then again, there are times when not fitting to the mainstream is absolutely okay for me and when I even embrace my being different and marvel at the fact that I have found a partner who shares many of my unusual interests and preferences.

How about you? What kind of strength are you striving for? Have you come across examples of strong, well rounded people whom you admire? Have you made experiences with insecurities in kinky play? And what does blog reading do for you? Does it always provide you with joyful thought- and fantasy-fodder? Or does reading about how others live and what they do sometimes also raise self-doubts? I'm curious to read about your experiences. Please feel free to share them in the comment section!

Consent At Spanking Parties

Yesterday I read a very well-written post published by Adele Haze about the topic of safewords. She linked to two articles which touched an even more disturbing topic – (real) rape in kinky play. I would like to write down a few thoughts on safety issues, dangers in kinky play and safewords as well, because I think those are very important topics which should be widely discussed in our community. I will need some time to think these things through, though.

But there is a related topic about which I meant to write for a while, so I am starting off with this one. It was brought up by a very thoughtful post written by Paul At North Gare titled Grounding Consent. It was about the more informal style of giving consent in the spanking community compared to the usually more formally negotiated consent in the BDSM world. Paul gave an example of such an informal negotiation process finally leading to a consensual spanking:

Person #1: *pours water on Person #2* [Hello! I'd like it if you spanked me! Is that okay?]
Person #2: “Do that again, miss, and there’ll be trouble.” [That would be fine, but I'd like to confirm I have your consent.]
Person #1: *pours more water* [This is confirmation that I want you to spank me, and am giving my consent.]
Person #2: “Come here!” [Your consent has been received!]
Person #1: “Ouch! I’m being spanked by you!”
Person #2: “I’m spanking you!”

The main problem of this approach, in Paul's view, is that there is a negotiation about the consent to play through this form of flirting, but what is missing is the negotiation about the consent for the flirting itself. As he puts it: "The surface form of flirting carries embedded within it a request for consent, a giving of consent, and an acknowlegement that consent has been agreed. That approach can work, and often does […] but I find I’m not drawn to it. I like the clarity and honesty of clear consent. […] In order to feel free to flirt — never mind to play — I want to know that such flirting is consented to, and what the ground rules are."

I completely agree with Paul in that I prefer to have the explicit consent of someone I want to play with, as well as clearly negotiated ground rules. Of course Ludwig sometimes spanks me spontaneously and I love that, but with others whom I don't know so well I prefer to have a clear idea of what is about to come and about their ideas and limits for a scene. When I read Paul's post it occurred to me that the way consent for spankings is often given at spanking parties even involves a second problem. One that often makes me feel a bit insecure at meetings with other spankos and spanking parties.

The thing is that I love a bit of banter, especially with people I like. In vanilla environments this isn’t a problem. My friends know me and they know that the comments I make are just good fun. But in kinky environments I am sometimes afraid that a spontaneous, teasing comment could be misinterpreted as a flirt and a play request. Since I’m often not in the mood for playing with others (especially people whom I don’t know very well), that sometimes gives me the feeling that it is better to contain and strictly control myself in kinky environments due to their flirting rules, in order to avoid any misinterpretation.

Of course I can tell people in advance that I don't want to play. But, first of all, that means I'm depriving myself of the chance to join in spontaneously if I develop the right mood for it later. And secondly, I still wouldn't be sure whether banter might be considered to be an unfair way of flirting without any real outcome for the others involved.

I would love to hear about your experiences with play events. Do you like explicit negotiations about consent and limits in advance or do you prefer the way of flirting? What kind of experiences have you made with different forms of asking for consent and establishing rules? Did you always have the feeling that your play partner had clearly given his or her consent? And did others always know whether you had given consent to them and to which extend? You are very welcome to join the discussion.

Spanking Porn: Anachronism

After three editions (On Compartmentalization, Where Are You?, That's Too Sexy?), my little series about spanking porn was supposed to be over. But doclash raised another interesting aspect in one of his recent comments which I would like to share with you.

In his comment doclash wrote: If I may now introduce another topic regarding a matter which I can find distracting (and detracting) in film scenes – anachronism. I find props which simply do not fit the period to be irritating. For example, pieces of 1960s to 1990s electronic equipment in scenes set in the early 1940s, one of the best examples being miniaturised electric shock torture devices which would simply not be possible with the electronics of the time. Also, to be believable, school scenes really need to be set in the 1950s, 1960s or earlier. That means no computers, no modern wall or desk phones, no cordless phones, certainly no mobile phones and no modern studded BDSM spanking paddles and similar. Also, the dramatis personae and terminology need to be appropriate for the time, i.e. female teachers would not wear trousers, pupils would not be called students and would not wear jeans, staff would address each other formally, not by first names, male staff (except possibly art teachers) would have short hair and be clean shaven (or have a neat moustache or short, neat beard at most), male pupils would also have short haircuts (sorry Pandora!) and female pupils would not sport modern tattoos or body piercings. Does anyone else have views on the issue of anachronism?

Donpascual picked up the topic and wrote: Anachronism is a point well worth discussing. I think, it is largely a problem of tight budgets. Producers grind out videos at top speed and minimal costs, to hell with quality and such things as timelines, historical correctness, and appropriate props. The only producer I know, who is careful to get every detail just right, down to the enema jar, is Lupus of course. Perhaps, they also profited from the late entry into the modern western world. They simply have all the old props, which we have thrown away decades ago. It's also the love to detail of true film makers which these Czech kinksters have in abundance. Niki Flynn wrote about it in her book "Dancing with Wolves".

I thought about doclash's and Donpascual's comments and my reactions concerning anachronism in spanking porn. Then I wrote the following replies. To doclash: I guess there are many people who prefer scenarios to be as historically correct as possible. Maybe I'm a bit lucky here, in that I am not so much interested in history to know exactly how historically appropriate clothes etc. looked like, so small mistakes don't bother me that easily. And I can live quite well with fictional scenarios, for example a British school that still practises CP today. I have to admit that I'm often not too comfortable with historical scenarios, anyway, because they can be "too real" for my taste. But I can relate to your observation that props which don't fit can be irritating. For example, in the "Dojo Discipline" series of Spanking Central, the Japanese word "sensei" is used to address the trainer/teacher, but there is a Korean flag hanging on the wall. I already found that a bit irritating, though it didn't keep me from enjoying the scene. And to Donpascual: I think you are right about tight budgets. Even Lupus seem to invest less time and money per video nowadays...

I think doclash and Donpascual have raised an interesting topic! That's why I would like to pass it on to our readers, and hear about your thoughts and opinions about anachronism. Is it important for you that the props fit the period of a spanking film? Do anachronisms in spanking porn tend to irritate you? Is there a difference depending on how familiar you are with a certain period and / or scenario? How about private play? If you have any thoughts on the topic, you are warmly invited to share them in a comment!

(Picture courtesy of Her First Punishment. The video is called "Birching of Serf Girls". Note that serfdom was abolished in Russia in 1861. Also note the guy's Adidas trousers!)