Primalex
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Posts
- 6,096
Disclaimer: This post is written from my perspective of a heterosexual, dominant male. It does not infer that certain activities, roles, behaviors etc. are locked to a certain gender.
BDSM has the tendency to clash with regular cultural expectations. Today I would like to write about one of it - pressure.
We can categorize pressure into these three categories:
Category 1 - Immoral and illegal
This method of pressure is widely known under it's legal term "coercion". It is when you threaten with violence or other dire consequences. It is so immoral, that society decided to outlaw this. The stereotypical example is the:"We are alone at night in winter in the forest, far away from a populated area, you better suck my cock if you don't want to walk home alone." This has hardly any place in BDSM, except in prearranged CNC roleplaying.
Category 2 - Dire consequences without immorality
I nickname this kind of pressure the "dead bedroom" pressure. It is where pressure is applied onto the partner, but it is not really seen as immoral. One example is the "dead bedroom". When one partner lets the other partner know that "it isn't working anymore" due to lack of sex and it has to change. Another variation is "hard limit meeting hard requirement". One of my personal hard requirements is oral sex. I wouldn't enter a relationship or maintain one with a submissive that would refuse giving oral sex. Some people believe that this is immoral, too, and it's just that the patriarchy prevented that it got put into category 1. Nicely worded - I don't share this ideology.
Category 3 - Regular consequences
This one is interesting, because immorality is shifting from one person to the other in my opinion and so we can create two sub-categories.
The first subcategory is defined by pressure against valid resistance. Sounds complicated, but it's likely the most common occurrence in relationships. It's when the partner denies sexual advances with a valid reason. "I don't feel well.", "I'm sick.", "I'm not in the mood.", "I'm stressed.", "The kids are here.", .... The most common form of pressure against this resistance is "nagging" - repeatedly insisting on it. This is considered immoral. This is where the BDSM "Free Use" concept primarily hooks into. Unfortunately though, the above mentioned some people have managed to make the world believe that this is coercion. You literally find plenty of websites that will claim that this is coercion. It's not in my world. This is as much coercion as a battery is a nuclear power plant. Calling this coercion comes from an ideology that believes you are entitled to never feel negative emotions and need to be punished for making someone else feel uncomfortable. Nicely worded again - I don't share this ideology. I agree it's wrong (outside a premeditated free use relationship). It definitely is a red flag if it's persistent, but you don't become the devil if your first reaction to "No, I'm too busy." is a one-time "Awwe, come on. Seriously? It'll be fun."
It's just not feasible to have a relationship that is devoid of uncomfortable emotions 100% of the time.
Well, if the first subcategory is defined by pressure against valid resistance, the second subcategory can be guessed - pressure against questionable resistance. Is there such a thing as a questionable "No" in a "No is no!" world? This sounds like heresy. Well, in my world, there is, so I'm a heretic. These are the variations where withholding sex is used as mere tool to punish or control. It is:"He didn't buy me flowers at all this year, he can suck his cock this week himself.", the "He disagreed with me in front of the kids, I'm teaching him a lesson.", the "less sex will be better for our relationship, as we then have more emotional instead of physical intimacy.". Pushing back against these resistances (if you are lucky and actually manage to find out the real motivation of refusing) is not immoral in my book. It does not allow you to turn it into a category 1 situation. But it is valid to call this manipulation out and go:"Seriously? I think I'm spending the night on the couch, we can cool down and then we should have a talk about it tomorrow."
So, it is a questionable resistance - the appropriate behavior would have been to talk about the issue beforehand and find an amicable solution - and not use it as a joker during sexy time for maximum impact.
It is also the category where the dominant is pushing the boundaries of the submissive, an activity that is widely expected by submissives and where the dominant enters another minefield and only has his gut-feeling available, which is not a perfect tool - except in BDSM stories, where he reads the mind and knows exactly when to push which boundary and how and where it's always met with reluctant enthusiasm. Again, this is also not feasible to expect that this works out 100% of the time in a relationship and that you will never feel uncomfortable. If you want to be a submissive, then feeling uncomfortable once in awhile is part of the experience in my book; very much like stubbing your toe is part of the experience of owning furniture. You might curse a lot about the furniture, but you are not throwing it out of the apartment, because you inherently know - you can't have the cake and eat it, too.
So, here are my 2 cents.
BDSM has the tendency to clash with regular cultural expectations. Today I would like to write about one of it - pressure.
We can categorize pressure into these three categories:
Category 1 - Immoral and illegal
This method of pressure is widely known under it's legal term "coercion". It is when you threaten with violence or other dire consequences. It is so immoral, that society decided to outlaw this. The stereotypical example is the:"We are alone at night in winter in the forest, far away from a populated area, you better suck my cock if you don't want to walk home alone." This has hardly any place in BDSM, except in prearranged CNC roleplaying.
Category 2 - Dire consequences without immorality
I nickname this kind of pressure the "dead bedroom" pressure. It is where pressure is applied onto the partner, but it is not really seen as immoral. One example is the "dead bedroom". When one partner lets the other partner know that "it isn't working anymore" due to lack of sex and it has to change. Another variation is "hard limit meeting hard requirement". One of my personal hard requirements is oral sex. I wouldn't enter a relationship or maintain one with a submissive that would refuse giving oral sex. Some people believe that this is immoral, too, and it's just that the patriarchy prevented that it got put into category 1. Nicely worded - I don't share this ideology.
Category 3 - Regular consequences
This one is interesting, because immorality is shifting from one person to the other in my opinion and so we can create two sub-categories.
The first subcategory is defined by pressure against valid resistance. Sounds complicated, but it's likely the most common occurrence in relationships. It's when the partner denies sexual advances with a valid reason. "I don't feel well.", "I'm sick.", "I'm not in the mood.", "I'm stressed.", "The kids are here.", .... The most common form of pressure against this resistance is "nagging" - repeatedly insisting on it. This is considered immoral. This is where the BDSM "Free Use" concept primarily hooks into. Unfortunately though, the above mentioned some people have managed to make the world believe that this is coercion. You literally find plenty of websites that will claim that this is coercion. It's not in my world. This is as much coercion as a battery is a nuclear power plant. Calling this coercion comes from an ideology that believes you are entitled to never feel negative emotions and need to be punished for making someone else feel uncomfortable. Nicely worded again - I don't share this ideology. I agree it's wrong (outside a premeditated free use relationship). It definitely is a red flag if it's persistent, but you don't become the devil if your first reaction to "No, I'm too busy." is a one-time "Awwe, come on. Seriously? It'll be fun."
It's just not feasible to have a relationship that is devoid of uncomfortable emotions 100% of the time.
Well, if the first subcategory is defined by pressure against valid resistance, the second subcategory can be guessed - pressure against questionable resistance. Is there such a thing as a questionable "No" in a "No is no!" world? This sounds like heresy. Well, in my world, there is, so I'm a heretic. These are the variations where withholding sex is used as mere tool to punish or control. It is:"He didn't buy me flowers at all this year, he can suck his cock this week himself.", the "He disagreed with me in front of the kids, I'm teaching him a lesson.", the "less sex will be better for our relationship, as we then have more emotional instead of physical intimacy.". Pushing back against these resistances (if you are lucky and actually manage to find out the real motivation of refusing) is not immoral in my book. It does not allow you to turn it into a category 1 situation. But it is valid to call this manipulation out and go:"Seriously? I think I'm spending the night on the couch, we can cool down and then we should have a talk about it tomorrow."
So, it is a questionable resistance - the appropriate behavior would have been to talk about the issue beforehand and find an amicable solution - and not use it as a joker during sexy time for maximum impact.
It is also the category where the dominant is pushing the boundaries of the submissive, an activity that is widely expected by submissives and where the dominant enters another minefield and only has his gut-feeling available, which is not a perfect tool - except in BDSM stories, where he reads the mind and knows exactly when to push which boundary and how and where it's always met with reluctant enthusiasm. Again, this is also not feasible to expect that this works out 100% of the time in a relationship and that you will never feel uncomfortable. If you want to be a submissive, then feeling uncomfortable once in awhile is part of the experience in my book; very much like stubbing your toe is part of the experience of owning furniture. You might curse a lot about the furniture, but you are not throwing it out of the apartment, because you inherently know - you can't have the cake and eat it, too.
So, here are my 2 cents.
