Search Results: Chastity

You are browsing the search results for chastity

Rape Culture and the Concept of Affirmative Consent

March against rape culture

March against rape culture

Throughout most of our history, rape was a property crime.

Today we do not, in the modern United States at least, think of a woman’s sexuality as a financial asset. But that is a recent phenomenon. For most of our history, rape was not treated the same way as other violent assaults because it wasn’t just a violent assault, it was also a crime against property.

You can see this view–of a woman’s sexuality belonging to her father and later her husband–in laws concerning rape and sexual assault. It was even possible for a father to sue a man who had consensual sex with his daughter because he had lost the value of his daughter. Based on this view, value is lost in terms of her work if she became pregnant and was no longer able to earn wages, or in terms of a future wife for someone else because of this stain on her character. Men could not be held accountable for raping their wives because a wife was a man’s property and consent to sex–at any time of his choosing–was part of the arrangement.

Lest you think that these laws are ancient examples of a culture that no longer bears relation to our current policies on rape, spousal rape was not made illegal in all fifty states until 1993, where it still may carry a less severe sentence than other rape offenses. The tort of seduction was technically on the books in North Carolina in 2003.

This context is important given our current cultural attitudes toward sexual assault. To understand this culture and how it can be amended, we need to look more deeply at the historical understandings of rape and consent.


Force Means No

The framework for defining rape underpins our understanding of who is required to prove consent or non-consent. The Hebrew Scriptures, which established longstanding cultural norms that helped form a basis for what was morally and legally acceptable in early America, make a distinction between a woman who was raped within a city and one who was raped outside of the city limits. The first woman was stoned to death and the second considered blameless (assuming she was a virgin). This distinction is based on the idea that it was the woman’s responsibility to cry out for help and show that she was non-consenting. A woman who was raped in the city obviously had not screamed because if she had someone would have come to her rescue and stopped the rape. The woman outside the city had no one to rescue her so she could not be blamed for being victimized.

This brutal logic, which is completely inconsistent with how we know some victims of rape react to an attack, was continued in the American legal system when our laws on rape were formulated. Rape was defined as a having a male perpetrator and a female victim and involving sexual penetration and a lack of consent. But it was again the woman’s responsibility to prove that she had not consented and the way that this was demonstrated was through her resistance. She was only actually raped if she had attempted to fight off her attacker. Different jurisdictions required different levels of force to show a true lack of consent. For example, fighting off an assailant to your utmost ability or even up to the point where the choice was either to submit to being raped or to being killed. Indeed, the cultural significance of chastity as a virtue that the female was expected to guard was so profound that many female Christian saints are saints at least in part because they chose to die rather than be raped or be a bride to anyone but Christ.

Potential canonization aside, it was consistently the responsibility of the woman alleging that she was the victim of a rape to prove that she had fought off her attacker in order to show that she had not consented. If she could not show that she had sufficiently resisted, she was deemed to not have been raped. Her chastity was someone else’s property, either her father’s or her husband’s/future husband’s, so it was always understood that someone, other than her, had the right to her sexuality. The assailant had assumed that he had the right to use her sexually and was only a rapist if she acted in such a way that a reasonable man would have known that she did not belong to him. Her failure to communicate that fact, that she was the property of some other man, was a sign that she had in fact consented. Therefore the rape was not his moral failing in stealing another man’s property but her moral failing in not protecting that property from being stolen.


Culture Wars

We can see the effects of this ideology in how we treat rape victims today. Although we don’t necessarily require evidence of forceful resistance, it is considered helpful in prosecuting a rape case. Rape shield laws may have eliminated the most egregious examples of slut-shaming victims, but an innocent or even virginal victim is certainly what the prosecution could hope for if they were trying to design their most favorable case. One of the first questions that will be asked of the victim is “did you say no?” In other words “what did YOU do to prevent this from happening to you?” The burden is still often legally and almost always culturally on the victim to show that they did not consent.

There is an alternative approach that has been gaining traction on college campuses and elsewhere known as the concept of “affirmative consent.” Take a look at the video below, which elucidates the differences between the “no versus no” approach compared to affirmative consent, which is often described as “yes means yes.”

In this video, Susan Patton and Rush Limbaugh both represent examples of rape culture. The contrast between the views of Savannah Badlich, the advocate of affirmative consent, and Patton, who is against the idea, could not be starker. To Badlich, consent is an integral part of what makes sex, sex. If there isn’t consent then whatever happened to you, whether most people would have enjoyed it or indeed whether or not you orgasmed, was rape. It is your consent that is the foundation of a healthy sexual experience, not the types of physical actions involved. In contrast, Patton expressed the view that good sex is good sex and consent seems to not play a role in whether it was good sex, or even whether it should be defined as sex at all. The only thing that could indicate if something is an assault versus a sexual encounter is whatever physical evidence exists, because otherwise, the distinction is based only on the assertions of each individual. Again we are back to evidence of force.


What is “Rape Culture”?

Rape culture refers to a culture in which sexuality and violence are linked together and normalized. It perpetuates the idea that male sexuality is based on the use of violence against women to subdue them to take a sexual experience, as well as the idea that female sexuality is the effort to resist or invite male sexuality under certain circumstances. It overgeneralizes gender roles in sexuality, demeans men by promoting their only healthy sexuality as predatory, and also demeans women by considering them objects without any positive sexuality at all.

According to this school of thought, the “no means no” paradigm fits in perfectly with rape culture because it paints men as being predators who are constantly looking for a weak member of the herd to take advantage of sexually, while also teaching women that they need to be better than the rest of the herd at fending off attacks, by clearly saying no, to survive. If they can’t do that, because they were drinking or not wearing proper clothing, then the attack was their fault.


“Yes Means Yes”

Affirmative consent works differently. Instead of assuming that you can touch someone until they prove otherwise, an affirmative consent culture assumes that you may not touch someone until you are invited to do so. This would be a shocking idea to some who assume that gamesmanship and predation are the cornerstones of male sexuality and the perks of power, but it works out better for the majority of men and women, who would prefer and who should demand equality in sex.

This video gives a brief highlight of some of the issues that are brought up when affirmative consent is discussed and the difficulties that can still arise even with affirmative consent as a model.


Evaluating Criticism of Affirmative Consent

The arguments are important so let’s unpack some of the key ones in more detail. The first objection, expressed in both videos, is how exactly do you show consent? Whenever the affirmative consent approach comes up, one of the first arguments is that it is unenforceable because no one is going to stop sexual activity to get written consent, which is the only way to really prove that a person consented. We still end up in a “he said, she said” situation, which is exactly where we are now, or a world where the government is printing out sex contracts.

The idea that affirmative consent will by necessity lead to written contracts for sex is a logical fallacy that opponents to affirmative consent use to make the proposition seem ridiculous. Currently, we require the victim to prove non-consent. Often the victim is asked if they gave a verbal no or if they said they did not want the contact. The victim is never asked: did you put the fact that you didn’t want to be touched in writing and have your assailant read it? The idea that a written explanation of non-consent would be the only way we would take it seriously is absurd, so it would be equally absurd to assume that requiring proof of consent would necessitate written documentation. Advocates for affirmative consent don’t want sex contracts.

In addition, even under our current framework we accept a variety of pieces of evidence from the prosecution to show that the victim did not consent. A clear “no” is obviously the strongest kind of evidence, just as under an affirmative consent framework an enthusiastic verbal “yes” would be the best evidence, but that is just what the best evidence is. That is certainly not the only kind of evidence available. Courts already look at the entire context surrounding the incident to try to determine consent. The process would be virtually the same under an affirmative consent model. The only difference would be that the burden would be on the defendant to show that they believed they had obtained consent based on the context of the encounter instead of placing the burden on the victim to show that, although they didn’t say “no,” they had expressed non-verbally that they were unwilling to participate.

The shift in the burden of proof is sometimes cited as a reason not to adopt an affirmative consent model. Critics argue that this affects the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Which is, rightly, a cornerstone of our judicial system. If this model did, in fact, change that presumption then it wouldn’t be an appropriate answer to this problem. But it does not.

Take another crime as an example. A woman’s car is stolen. The police issue a BOLO on the car, find it, and bring the suspect in and sit him down. They ask him “did you have permission to take that car?” and he replies “Yes, officer, she gave me the keys!”

He is still presumed innocent and, as far as this brief hypothetical tells us, hasn’t had his rights violated. It looks as though he is going to get a fair trial at this point. That trial may still devolve into another he said, she said situation. She may allege that she didn’t give him the keys but merely left them on the kitchen table. At that point, it will be up to the jury to decide who they believe, but that would have been the case in any event. He is presenting her giving the keys to him as one of the facts to show his innocence.

If a woman’s car is stolen we don’t question her about how many miles are on the odometer. We don’t ask if she wore a seatbelt the last time she drove it. We don’t care if she had been drinking because her alcohol consumption doesn’t negate the fact that she was a victim of a crime. We certainly wouldn’t force her to prove that she didn’t give the thief the keys. That burden would rightly be on him and we would be able to both place that burden on him and at the same time presume him to be innocent until he failed to meet that burden.

Adopting an affirmative consent model changes how consent is perceived. It is primarily a cultural change in understanding who is responsible for consent. Rather than making the non-initiating party responsible for communicating a lack of consent, affirmative consent requires that the initiating party obtains obvious consent.

That is how affirmative consent works. It wouldn’t require a written contract or even necessarily a verbal assertion. Context would always matter and the cases would still often become two competing stories about what the context meant. And it doesn’t mean that we are assuming that person is guilty before they have the chance to show that they did, in fact, get that consent. It just means that we are placing the burden of proving that consent was obtained on the party claiming that consent had been obtained.


Conclusion

There is no other category of crime where we ask the victim to show that they didn’t want to be the victim of that crime. A man who is stabbed in a bar fight, regardless of whether he was drunk or belligerent, isn’t asked to prove that he didn’t want a knife wound.

We need to change our cultural framework of rape and consent. When we are working under an affirmative consent framework what we are doing is changing the first question. Currently, our first question is for the victim: did you say no? Under an affirmative consent model our first question is for the suspect: did you get a yes?

Complete Article HERE!

A handy history

Condemned, celebrated, shunned: masturbation has long been an uncomfortable fact of life. Why?

by Barry Reay

A handy history

The anonymous author of the pamphlet Onania (1716) was very worried about masturbation. The ‘shameful vice’, the ‘solitary act of pleasure’, was something too terrible to even be described. The writer agreed with those ‘who are of the opinion, that… it never ought to be spoken of, or hinted at, because the bare mentioning of it may be dangerous to some’. There was, however, little reticence in cataloguing ‘the frightful consequences of self-pollution’. Gonorrhoea, fits, epilepsy, consumption, impotence, headaches, weakness of intellect, backache, pimples, blisters, glandular swelling, trembling, dizziness, heart palpitations, urinary discharge, ‘wandering pains’, and incontinence – were all attributed to the scourge of onanism.

The fear was not confined to men. The full title of the pamphlet was Onania: Or the Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution, and all its Frightful Consequences (in Both Sexes). Its author was aware that the sin of Onan referred to the spilling of male seed (and divine retribution for the act) but reiterated that he treated ‘of this crime in relation to women as well as men’. ‘Whilst the offence is Self-Pollution in both, I could not think of any other word which would so well put the reader in mind both of the sin and its punishment’. Women who indulged could expect disease of the womb, hysteria, infertility and deflowering (the loss of ‘that valuable badge of their chastity and innocence’).

Another bestselling pamphlet was published later in the century: L’onanisme (1760) by Samuel Auguste Tissot. He was critical of Onania, ‘a real chaos … all the author’s reflections are nothing but theological and moral puerilities’, but nevertheless listed ‘the ills of which the English patients complain’. Tissot was likewise fixated on ‘the physical disorders produced by masturbation’, and provided his own case study, a watchmaker who had self-pleasured himself into ‘insensibility’ on a daily basis, sometimes three times a day; ‘I found a being that less resembled a living creature than a corpse, lying upon straw, meagre, pale, and filthy, casting forth an infectious stench; almost incapable of motion.’ The fear these pamphlets promoted soon spread.

The strange thing is that masturbation was never before the object of such horror. In ancient times, masturbation was either not much mentioned or treated as something a little vulgar, not in good taste, a bad joke. In the Middle Ages and for much of the early modern period too, masturbation, while sinful and unnatural, was not invested with such significance. What changed?

Religion and medicine combined powerfully to create a new and hostile discourse. The idea that the soul was present in semen led to thinking that it was very important to retain the vital fluid. Its spilling became, then, both immoral and dangerous (medicine believed in female semen at the time). ‘Sin, vice, and self-destruction’ were the ‘trinity of ideas’ that would dominate from the 18th into the 19th century, as the historians Jean Stengers and Anne Van Neck put it in Masturbation: The Great Terror (2001).

There were exceptions. Sometimes masturbation was opposed for more ‘enlightened’ reasons. In the 1830s and 1840s, for instance, female moral campaign societies in the United States condemned masturbation, not out of hostility to sex, but as a means to self-control. What would now be termed ‘greater sexual agency’ – the historian April Haynes refers to ‘sexual virtue’ and ‘virtuous restraint’ – was central to their message.

Yet it is difficult to escape the intensity of the fear. J H Kellogg’s Plain Facts for Old and Young (1877) contained both exaggerated horror stories and grand claims: ‘neither the plague, nor war, nor smallpox, nor similar diseases, have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of Onanism; it is the destroying element of civilised societies’. Kellogg suggested remedies for the scourge, such as exercise, strict bathing and sleeping regimes, compresses, douching, enemas and electrical treatment. Diet was vital: this rabid anti-masturbator was co-inventor of the breakfast cereal that still bears his name. ‘Few of today’s eaters of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes know that he invented them, almost literally, as anti-masturbation food,’ as the psychologist John Money once pointed out.

The traces are still with us in other ways. Male circumcision, for instance, originated in part with the 19th-century obsession with the role of the foreskin in encouraging masturbatory practices. Consciously or not, many US males are faced with this bodily reminder every time they masturbate. And the general disquiet unleashed in the 18th century similarly lingers on today. We seem to have a confusing and conflicting relationship with masturbation. On one hand it is accepted, even celebrated – on the other, there remains an unmistakable element of taboo.

When the sociologist Anthony Giddens in The Transformation of Intimacy (1992) attempted to identify what made modern sex modern, one of the characteristics he identified was the acceptance of masturbation. It was, as he said, masturbation’s ‘coming out’. Now it was ‘widely recommended as a major source of sexual pleasure, and actively encouraged as a mode of improving sexual responsiveness on the part of both sexes’. It had indeed come to signify female sexual freedom with Betty Dodson’s Liberating Masturbation (1974) (renamed and republished as Sex for One in 1996), which has sold more than a million copies, and her Bodysex Workshops in Manhattan with their ‘all-women masturbation circles’. The Boston Women’s Health Collective’s classic feminist text Our Bodies, Ourselves (1973) included a section called ‘Learning to Masturbate’.

Alfred Kinsey and his team are mainly remembered for the sex surveys that publicised the pervasiveness of same-sex desires and experiences in the US, but they also recognised the prevalence of masturbation. It was, for both men and women, one of the nation’s principal sexual outlets. In the US National Survey (2009–10), 94 per cent of men aged 25-29 and 85 per cent of women in the same age group said that they had masturbated alone in the course of their lifetime. (All surveys indicate lower reported rates for women.) In the just-published results of the 2012 US National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, 92 per cent of straight men and a full 100 per cent of gay men recorded lifetime masturbation.

There has certainly been little silence about the activity. Several generations of German university students were questioned by a Hamburg research team about their masturbatory habits to chart changing attitudes and practices from 1966 to 1996; their results were published in 2003. Did they reach orgasm? Were they sexually satisfied? Was it fun? In another study, US women were contacted on Craigslist and asked about their masturbatory experiences, including clitoral stimulation and vaginal penetration. An older, somewhat self-referential study from 1977 of sexual arousal to films of masturbation asked psychology students at the University of Connecticut to report their ‘genital sensations’ while watching those films. Erection? Ejaculation? Breast sensations? Vaginal lubrication? Orgasm? And doctors have written up studies of the failed experiments of unfortunate patients: ‘Masturbation Injury Resulting from Intraurethral Introduction of Spaghetti’ (1986); ‘Penile Incarceration Secondary to Masturbation with A Steel Pipe’ (2013), with illustrations.

‘We are a profoundly self-pleasuring society at both a metaphorical and material level’

Self-stimulation has been employed in sexual research, though not always to great import. Kinsey and his team wanted to measure how far, if at all, semen was projected during ejaculation: Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, Kinsey’s biographer, refers to queues of men in Greenwich Village waiting to be filmed at $3 an ejaculation. William Masters and Virginia Johnson recorded and measured the physiological response during sexual arousal, using new technology, including a miniature camera inside a plastic phallus. Their book Human Sexual Response (1966) was based on data from more than 10,000 orgasms from nearly 700 volunteers: laboratory research involving sexual intercourse, stimulation, and masturbation by hand and with that transparent phallus. Learned journals have produced findings such as ‘Orgasm in Women in the Laboratory – Quantitative Studies on Duration, Intensity, Latency, and Vaginal Blood Flow’ (1985).

In therapy, too, masturbation has found its place ‘as a means of achieving sexual health’, as an article by Eli Coleman, the director of the programme in human sexuality at the University of Minnesota Medical School, once put it. A published study in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology in 1977 outlined therapist-supervised female masturbation (with dildo, vibrator and ‘organic vegetables’) as a way of encouraging vaginal orgasm. Then there is The Big Book of Masturbation (2003) and the hundreds of (pun intended) self-help books, Masturbation for Weight Loss, a Womans Guide only among the latest (and more opportunistic).

Self-pleasure has featured in literature, most famously in Philip Roth’s novel Portnoys Complaint (1969). But it is there in more recent writing too, including Chuck Palahniuk’s disturbing short story ‘Guts’ (2004). Autoeroticism (and its traces) have been showcased in artistic expression: in Jordan MacKenzie’s sperm and charcoal canvases (2007), for example, or in Marina Abramović’s reprise of Vito Acconci’s Seedbed at the Guggenheim in 2005, or her video art Balkan Erotic Epic of the same year.

On film and television, masturbation is similarly pervasive: Lauren Rosewarne’s Masturbation in Pop Culture (2014) was able to draw on more than 600 such scenes. My favourites are in the film Spanking the Monkey (1994), in which the main character is trying to masturbate in the bathroom, while the family dog, seemingly alert to such behaviour, pants and whines at the door; and in the Seinfeld episode ‘The Contest’ (1992), in which the ‘m’ word is never uttered, and where George’s mother tells her adult son that he is ‘treating his body like it was an amusement park’.

There is much evidence, then, for what the film scholar Greg Tuck in 2009 called the ‘mainstreaming of masturbation’: ‘We are a profoundly self-pleasuring society at both a metaphorical and material level.’ There are politically-conscious masturbation websites. There is the online ‘Masturbation Hall of Fame’ (sponsored by the sex-toys franchise Good Vibrations). There are masturbationathons, and jack-off-clubs, and masturbation parties.

It would be a mistake, however, to present a rigid contrast between past condemnation and present acceptance. There are continuities. Autoeroticism might be mainstreamed but that does not mean it is totally accepted. In Sexual Investigations (1996), the philosopher Alan Soble observed that people brag about casual sex and infidelities but remain silent about solitary sex. Anne-Francis Watson and Alan McKee’s 2013 study of 14- to 16-year-old Australians found that not only the participants but also their families and teachers were more comfortable talking about almost any other sexual matter than about self-pleasuring. It ‘remains an activity that is viewed as shameful and problematic’, warns the entry on masturbation in the Encyclopedia of Adolescence (2011). In a study of the sexuality of students in a western US university, where they were asked about sexual orientation, anal and vaginal sex, condom use, and masturbation, it was the last topic that occasioned reservation: 28 per cent of the participants ‘declined to answer the masturbation questions’. Masturbation remains, to some extent, taboo.

When the subject is mentioned, it is often as an object of laughter or ridicule. Rosewarne, the dogged viewer of the 600 masturbation scenes in film and TV, concluded that male masturbation was almost invariably portrayed negatively (female masturbation was mostly erotic). Watson and McKee’s study revealed that their young Australians knew that masturbation was normal yet still made ‘negative or ambivalent statements’ about it.

Belief in the evils of masturbation has resurfaced in the figure of the sex addict and in the obsession with the impact of internet pornography. Throughout their relatively short histories, sexual addiction and hypersexual disorder have included masturbation as one of the primary symptoms of their purported maladies. What, in a sex-positive environment, would be considered normal sexual behaviour has been pathologised in another. Of the 152 patients in treatment for hypersexual disorder in clinics in California, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah, a 2012 study showed that most characterised their sexual disorder in terms of pornography consumption (81 per cent) and masturbation (78 per cent). The New Catholic Encyclopedia’s supplement on masturbation (2012-13), too, slips into a lengthy disquisition on sex addiction and the evils of internet pornography: ‘The availability of internet pornography has markedly increased the practice of masturbation to the degree that it can be appropriately referred to as an epidemic.’

Critics think that therapeutic masturbation might reinforce sexual selfishness rather than sexual empathy and sharing

The masturbator is often seen as the pornography-consumer and sex addict enslaved by masturbation. The sociologist Steve Garlick has suggested that negative attitudes to masturbation have been reconstituted to ‘surreptitiously infect ideas about pornography’. Pornography has become masturbation’s metonym. Significantly, when the New Zealand politician Shane Jones was exposed for using his taxpayer-funded credit card to view pornographic movies, the unnamed shame was that his self-pleasuring activities were proclaimed on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers – thus the jokes about ‘the matter in hand’ and not shaking hands with him at early morning meetings. It would have been less humiliating, one assumes, if he had used the public purse to finance the services of sex workers.

Nor is there consensus on the benefits of masturbation. Despite its continued use in therapy, some therapists question its usefulness and propriety. ‘It is a mystery to me how conversational psychotherapy has made the sudden transition to massage parlour technology involving vibrators, mirrors, surrogates, and now even carrots and cucumbers!’ one psychologist protested in the late 1970s. He was concerned about issues of client-patient power and a blinkered pursuit of the sexual climax ‘ignoring … the more profound psychological implications of the procedure’. In terms of effectiveness, critics think that therapeutic masturbation might reinforce individual pleasure and sexual selfishness rather than creating sexual empathy and sharing. As one observed in the pages of the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy in 1995: ‘Ironically, the argument against masturbation in American society was originally religiously founded, but may re-emerge as a humanist argument.’ Oversimplified, but in essence right: people remain disturbed by the solitariness of solitary sex.

Why has what the Japanese charmingly call ‘self-play’ become such a forcing ground for sexual attitudes? Perhaps there is something about masturbation’s uncontrollability that continues to make people anxious. It is perversely non-procreative, incestuous, adulterous, homosexual, ‘often pederastic’ and, in imagination at least, sex with ‘every man, woman, or beast to whom I take a fancy’, to quote Soble. For the ever-astute historian Thomas Laqueur, author of Solitary Sex (2003), masturbation is ‘that part of human sexual life where potentially unlimited pleasure meets social restraint’.

Why did masturbation become such a problem? For Laqueur, it began with developments in 18th-century Europe, with the cultural rise of the imagination in the arts, the seemingly unbounded future of commerce, the role of print culture, the rise of private, silent reading, especially novels, and the democratic ingredients of this transformation. Masturbation’s condemned tendencies – solitariness, excessive desire, limitless imagination, and equal-opportunity pleasure – were an outer limit or testing of these valued attributes, ‘a kind of Satan to the glories of bourgeois civilisation’.

In more pleasure-conscious modern times, the balance has tipped towards personal gratification. The acceptance of personal autonomy, sexual liberation and sexual consumerism, together with a widespread focus on addiction, and the ubiquity of the internet, now seem to demand their own demon. Fears of unrestrained fantasy and endless indulging of the self remain. Onania’s 18th-century complaints about the lack of restraint of solitary sex are not, in the end, all that far away from today’s fear of boundless, ungovernable, unquenchable pleasure in the self.

Complete Article HERE!

The SUPER Kinky Sex Act Your Man Is Scared To Tell You He’s Into

By Dawn Michael

Wow! It’s the second highest heterosexual porn search term.

You’ve heard the term “cuckold” and know it’s “kinky”… but what is it really? How does it work? And most importantly … is it for you?

cuckold-1

Sex counselors and sex coaches, like me, are knowledgeable about the practice to some degree. My job as a Clinical Sexologist and Intimacy Counselor is writing educational articles that help enlighten the public about sexuality in all of its forms. Cuckolding is just one of the many kinks people have but do not fully understand.

So, I’m here to answer your curious questions about this kinky ancient marriage practice:

Q. A cuckold marriage … what exactly is it?

I describe cuckolding as a marriage where the husband derives sexual pleasure from watching his wife have sex with a man who has a larger penis.

The couple forms an agreement in their marriage allowing the act of cuckold, which can vary in degree from role play for some couples to an lifestyle of actual cuckolding (the wife engages with sex with other men in front of her husband). This knowledge and tolerance of the wife’s activities with other men makes the husband in such relationships a “wittol,” properly speaking.

Q. Where did the term cuckold come from?

The female equivalent “cuckquean” first appears in English literature in 1562. Cuckold refers to the fact that the man being cuckolded is the last to know about his wife’s infidelity.

This also refers to a tradition claiming that in villages of European time, the community would gather to collectively humiliate a man whose wife gave birth to a child that was not his own. This is where the humiliation aspect of cuckolding first came into play. According to this legend, a parade was held in which they forced the hapless husband into wearing antlers on his head as a symbol of his wife’s infidelity.

Q. What actually happens in a cuckold relationship?

In modern cuckolding, the husband watches his wife engage in sexual activity with other men either right in front of him, or she tells him about her experiences after. The husband feeling like a victim of the cuckold is a major element of the kink.

In the fetish cuckolding subculture, the female is typically sexually dominant while the man takes on a submissive role, only becoming involved with her or her lover when the wife permits it — sometimes he remains completely celibate in the marriage altogether. A main ingredient in cuckolding marriages is humiliation and denying the husband sexual release until his wife decides to allow him to climax. In some marriages, the husband may even wear a male chastity, further allowing his wife control over his orgasm.

Part of the sex play is also the comparison of penis size and the wife shaming her husband for not having a large enough penis to give her full enjoyment of penetration. For this reason, many men in the fantasy of cuckold consider a black man dominant.

Q. Is cuckolding the same as swinging or having an open marriage?

Often people confuse cuckolding with swinging or polyamory, but cuckold is different in that the husband is loved by his wife only. He allows her to experience pleasure with another man. But, he does not want her to fall in love with the other men, only just receive pleasure from them.

Q. Is “shame” the only way the wife makes the man submissive to her?

Sometimes submission elevates through the wife using domination or bondage paraphernalia to tie her spouse up and spank, paddle, or flog him as way of “punishment” or shaming for not fulfilling her sexual desires. This can occur just as sexual role play in the couple’s life, or it can become a way of life for the couple depending on the degree of cuckolding in the marriage.

Q. Is the desire for cuckolding common (and is it normal)? 

Cuckolding has been around for centuries and retains its popularity today. In fact, neuroscientists Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam found (after analyzing the contents a billion online search terms) that “cuckold porn” is second only to “youth” in heterosexual porn searches. (Although, it’s important to note that what you typically see depicted in pornography does not explain the psychological aspect of cuckolding.)

In other words —a man wanting to feel submissive to his wife and have her shame him, but he lives in fear of anyone knowing, is not as uncommon as we may think.

One of the main questions I get asked by men is, “How do I tell my wife I want this? And if she does agree, where do I find a person to start the cuckolding with?” As with any new adventure that a married couple takes with sex play, this should all begin slowly and with respect for each other.

Complete Article HERE!

An Instructional Guide to Kinks, Fetishes, and the World of BDSM

dyson

This is a guide to various kinks and fetishes that are found in the world of sex. They can be used in your roleplay as your characters turn on’s and turn off’s, or a secret that they have. Or maybe it is something to has shaped them. I have not only discovered various ones and experimented with them personally, but have had exposure to them. Master/Slave RP’s are taking off and I am one of few who will touch on the subject. There is a lot of fear in this world because things can go very VERY wrong very fast. How do I know? I have been there. I have been the observer and the recipient of things going wrong. So this is to help you know and learn about the basics. I will go over some fetishes that are often blown out of proportion and also explain the dynamic of a Dom/sub and Master/slave relationship. I do not claim to be an expert. This is just what I have learned and absorbed from being in the scene for several years.

Now first off this isn’t a way to say “I can do this to someone without asking first” DO NOT EVER DO THAT! No one asks you to do something to them unless they have given you verbal or written permission (That is witnessed) to do the things I will discuss. It is never EVER okay to do this to a man or a woman and anyone who says otherwise has not be in the position where their no’s are not listened.

Kinks are defined as socially acceptable forms of fetishism’s. Where as Fetish is something you worship, fantasize over completely. Both of these are found in the overlapping work of BDSM (Bondage, Domination, Sadism and Masochism). They can vary to the smallest things to the biggest, weirdest things you would ever think of. Almost every town around the world has a community of people who participate in these various acts. The community often meets to talk, hangout and have coffee and throw events for their members. These events include play parties, classes and munches (hanging out in a vanilla setting – vanilla being normal).

The first rule in the community of BDSM, Kink and Fetish is Consent. No matter what it is. You consent with your fellow party(ies) about what is occurring because everything needs to be Safe, Sane and Consensual. You need to establish the basics of what is going to happen, what your limits are (Both soft – so what you aren’t to keen on trying but if you trust your partner enough, you will do it – and hard – so no way in hell you are doing that). You need to establish a signal, be it verbal or physical, to indicate when you need it to stop or change. Often the word Yellow and Red are used and for physical signals, number of blinks or a hand gesture. And you need to express when you do not feel comfortable. If you feel uncomfortable with what is going to be done to you or that you are going to do YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO SAY NO!

That being said! Let us start.

There are many different kinks and fetishes that can be found in the world. These can include simple ones of being tied up, blindfolds, feathers, women (or men) wearing heels, eating food off of one another, biting, hair pulling, uniforms, long hair (or short hair)… the list is long because in truth there are many and I am not going to list them all. Then there are the more complex, more intense ones. These include needle play, CBT, cupping, impact play (This includes paddles, whips, floggers, hair brushes, hands, wooden spoons, canes and any other instrument you can spank with), chastity devices, latex, gagging… again the lists are long.

Impact Play

Impact Play

Impact Play:

  • Impact Play is the use of a hard (or soft) object by the top to strike the bottom repetitively.
  • Instruments that can be used in Impact Play include: Flogger, Cane, Paddle, Whip, Riding Crop, Wooden Spoon, belt, hair brush, hand, etc.
  • Impact play usually occurs on the buttocks and thighs. It is often advised to not strike anywhere that isn’t cushioned with fat. This includes the kidney area, neck, tailbone, hipbones, head and all joints.
  • When using whips, one has to be careful to avoid a wrap around effect. This is when it coils around an appendage and can either cause excessive pain or something more horrible.

 

Sensory Play

Sensory Play

Sensory Play:

  • Sensory Play is limiting one sense to enhance the other senses.
  • Sensory Play includes blind folds, ear muffs/plugs, large boxes over the head, wax, feathers, ice, silk, and anything else that plays with the senses.
  • These can be used often without much worry, though wax can cause burns ans pain at the same time. Sensory play always involves signals, either verbal or physical and the top must respect when the bottom says stop (or red).

 

Restraining:

  • Restraining in kink and BDSM is restricting a limb(s) from movement or use. This includes the arms, feet, legs, hands, neck and whole body if desired.

    bondage003.jpg

    Bondage

  • Items often used in restraining include rope, duct tape, packing tape, industrial roles of saran wrap, vacuum bags, spreaders, chains, bondage tape, ties, long pieces of fabric and anything that can tie have a not tied in it.
  • With rope, there are various ways to it. There is just simple knots and there is also costume style (full body binds). There is also shibari, which is a Japanese form of restraint with rope. Both forms can take loads of time to complete to create beautiful pieces on a man or woman’s body. Costume Style x Shibari Style x
  • When binding with ANYTHING you do not (And I repeat NOT) want to cut of circulation to any area. You want to be able to place two fingers comfortably in between the restraint used and the skin. If you can’t, it is to tight and will eventually lead to the discoloration of skin and numbness and blood flow begins to slow.
  • Some people enjoy having this though but it is ill advised to do because nerve damage can occur.

 

Other Kinks/Fetishes That Need to be Known and Understood:

  • There are many kinks and fetishes in the world but some are not understood as they should be. This is because the media has made them out to be worse than they are or people are not educated enough to understand them. These include: needle play, voyeurism, exhibition, humiliation, role playing (Not like what we do! I will explain…), artistic cutting.
  • Needle Play: Needle play is the use of sterile needles to do artistic works on the human body.
    Needle Play

    Needle Play

    The gauge of the needle varies to what the bottom can handle but usually a gauge between 17 and 20 is used. This is always done in a sterile environment with proper precautions taken. This includes the wearing of gloves, a bin to dispose of the used needles and something for the marks left from the needles. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of this being done to you than you have every right to deny it. Some people enjoy having needles put in to all parts of their body, literally. But you are not expected to do it. And you do not have to observe it either. But to some this is very zen.

  • Voyeurism, Exhibition and Humiliation: I am grouping these together because they often go hand and hand together. Some people do get turned on by doing things in public. Be it having a spanking, walked down the street nude and leashed or, sorry to be so blunt about it, fucked in a public place. People do enjoy this sorta of thing. To many of us this would traumatize us and you have every right to tell the Top that you will not do that.
  • Role playing: Role playing in BDSM is indeed playing out different roles, which might include: Doctor/Nurse, Priest/Nun, Teacher/Student, Doctor/Patient, Guard/Prisoner… really there is no limit to what can occur. This are all sorts of creations that people come up with and it is always between two consenting adults.
  • Artistic Cutting: This is in shape, form or way the same as cutting that people do when they are depressed or that. This is done with a sterile razor or scalpel that is disposed of after and done to create a design drawn out and planned. It tends to permanent so it takes a lot of for thought and decision to do before hand. The top has to take plenty of care not to cut to deep in to the skin in order to keep the nerves and veins safe. It is a very delicate process and, once again, you do not have to do it if you do not feel safe doing it.

Relationship Dynamics:

  • There are various relationship dynamics that can be found in BDSM, Kink, and the Fetish community. A few are as follows:Master/slave or Mistress/Slave
    Dominant/sub or Domme/sub
    Top/Bottom
    Daddy/baby-girl/boy or Mommy/baby-boy/girl
    Owner/pet (This can be a puppy, kitten, pony or whatever else one desires.)
  • All relationships have a contract. This states what the sub/slave/bottom/baby-girl/boy will do and have done to them. But it also stipulates what the Dom/Domme/Master/Mistress/Mommy/Daddy/Top will do for the sub/slave/bottom/baby-girl/boy. Some examples of what would be include in a contract is limits, comfort time, expectations from both sides (weight lose for health, outfits, curfews, etc), safety regulations, etc. Anything to ensure the safety, sanity and respect of BOTH parties is put in to the contracts.
  • Also you will note that I have capitalized the Dominant role and lower case for the submissive
    full out collar

    full out collar

    necklace

    necklace

    role. I don’t know exactly why this is done but in my humble opinion it is because the Dominant role is in charge and has the sense of power while the submissive role is lacking power and has given up control to the Dominant role.

  • Master(Mistress)/slave: This is the most strict relationship that a relationship in the BDSM world has. The Master or Mistress has complete control over what occurs in the slaves life – what is eaten, when and where they sleep, who they see and how often they see these people, where and how money is spent and even chores. Often these relationships are long standing and result in marriage or partnership. The slave however is not the only one who makes a commitment in this relationship. The Master or Mistress agrees to take care of the slave, to help them and comfort them if need be and to protect them. A slave is always wearing a collar. They can be a full out collar, a slim collar, a necklace, a bracelet, or a ring. The giving of one of these items is a very serious ordeal and is often done in a ceremony with friends from the community they are in. The slave wears their collar (or other piece of jewelry that claims they are a slave) 24/7. The also may have multiple collars – one to wear in public, one to be worn at home and one to be worn in play, with a combination of any of these three. They rarely remove it – only if they are showering and the collar is made of leather or if they are changing from an informal one to a formal one.
  • Dom(Domme)/sub: This is the most common relationship dynamic found in the BDSM
    kitty play

    Kitty Play

    puppy play

    Puppy Play

    community from what I have seen. It is similar to a Master/slave relationship but they are not as strict and direct. They also have a contract drawn up with expectations from both sides as well as what the limits are for the submissive. A sub can receive a collar similar to what a slave receives but they are not obligated to wear it all the time. It is only worn in play or at home usually. However, some Doms may seem like they are more of the Master type as they are firm and hard with their submissive and they refer to themselves as a Dom. It is because of how they are in play and not how they come off. Even the hardest man (or woman) may be a sub in truth.

  • Top/bottom: This is the center and general names for people who play. Not every Dom is a Top and not every sub is a bottom. These are merely the positions that are taken in play.
  • The top being the one who does things to the bottom, which usually is involved in any type of play that is done. The Top ensures that all things are safe throughout the entire play session. They are to check on the bottom to ensure that they are okay, that they want to continue on, to ask if they want to take it a step further and to comfort them at the end of the session. The bottom is to tell the top how they feel throughout the whole think. If the bottom at any point wishes to stop and says so by speaking the safe word, than the top must comply. There is no ifs, ands or buts. THE TOP WILL STOP WHEN THE BOTTOM SAYS RED OR WHATEVER SAFE WORD HAS BEEN DESIGNATED TO STOP. The bottom in a sense does have complete control over the session because if they can not do anymore than that is it. The top DOES NOT continue after the safe word is said.

    Pony Play

    Pony Play

  • Daddy/baby-girl/boy or Mommy/baby-boy/girl: This is a softer approach to a BDSM relationship. There is often a lot of cuddling and softer things than what you would find in a Dom/sub relationship. The baby-girl/boy does have expectation to and doesn’t have to wear a collar unless they desire to. It is just a softer dynamic and is in no way related to incest. This is two adults who consent to these roles.
  • Petplay: Petplay involves the taking on an appearance of an animal. The most common ones being puppy, kitty and pony. The animal often has a human owner but in puppy and kitty play, it is possible for both people in the relationship to be the animal, but there is one who is an Alpha. So they take on the Dominant role. There is the costumes and accessories for this sorta of thing available for purchase or you can make your own items.

“But you may ask; why not? I am the Top. The Dom. A true Master.” Really? Cram it! And if I hear you say that again I will take a book to your head to beat some sense in to you! There is no true Master or true Dom. Safety is key and if you can not respect that then you should be reprimanded by everyone and anyone. No matter the dynamic, you take care of one another because that is what a good relationship does. Nurture the relationship and let this guide aid you in creating a good SAFE dynamic between you and others.

If anyone wishes for me to expand on anything, just ask. Maybe I will do a guide with just one thing or another. This is just a summery.

Complete Article HERE!

Beaver Trap

Everyone here at DDSA.com is about to head out for our annual end of summer holiday. But before we do, there’s this little ditty.

Name: Ward Clever
Gender: male
Age: 40
Location: Suburban, USA
My wife, June, has been passing around the beaver, if you know what I mean. This has got to stop. That beaver belongs to me. What do you suggest I do to teach her a lesson?

Dear Ward, I hear ya!  I know how troubling it can be when the little woman wanders. What’s a husband to do?Deluxe Female Chastity Belt-1

I think it’s time to trap that Beaver Cleaver, if you know what I mean. And I think you do.

Here’s what you’ll need to get the job done. The Pink Deluxe Female Chastity Belt, a top quality piece of pink leather BDSM fetish gear. So feminine, yet so sturdy!

This deluxe locking chastity belt has a waist belt, and a second belt going between the legs flaring out in an hourglass shape around the crotch area, giving more coverage in front and in back, while narrowing between the legs to conform to pelvic anatomy. How thoughtful!

Deluxe Female Chastity Belt_2Ward, my friend, not only will this little number trap June’s beaver, it will keep her bunghole from wandering too!Large Heart Padlock

This leather harness is a full-fledged chastity belt, don’t cha know. Both of the adjustable belts are lockable. The whole belt requires four locks (not included). Remember, beavers are wily creatures so security is a must if you want to get the job done right.

And while you’re at it, pick up four of these Large Heart Padlocks. You’ll want to properly secure the chastity belt and what better way to do that then with a little something that says, “I Love You?”

See, being a thoughtful loving husband is as easy as pie.

Good Luck