Specific Narrative Kinks: You do it to yourself

What do I mean by this:

This is situations in which the constrict has to put their own effort into their own torture. The key is that whatever torture they will be enduring, it will not happen if they don’t do this. (Something else might happen, but not this). Some examples from my own stories:

  • The constrict has to hold onto the pain inducing device being used. (If they let go, the pain would stop).
  • The constrict has to cast an agony-beam type spell on themselves.
  • The constrict has to perform sufficiently well at a different task in order to ‘earn’ the torture (sometimes the task could be ‘asking for it’, as long as the possibility of not doing well enough is existent).
  • The constrict has to do something physical to themselves (say, stab themselves, or touch something hot enough to burn).

Relations:

This generally happens in situations of nonconsensual consent. In nonconsensual consent, the constrict, in a situation that brings then suffering, genuinely prefers that situation to the other options they have. Here, this is also the case – that is why the constrict will do what they will be doing – but rather than the situation then just happening to them, they have to put their effort behind their choice. For category 1 nonconsensual consent, this is generally a case of threat – often in my own stories the principal has threatened to torture someone else instead of the constrict, and the effort is required to have that not happen. For category 3 nonconsensual consent, a constrict who, for instance, feels they should be tortured as punishment might be required to give this effort to ‘earn’ their atonement.

A lot of my emotion-type kinks show up in this one. Struggling against yourself; pouring anything and everything you can into something with the threat of failure hanging over you; the vehemence feeling of it; the tension between willing and able and having to confront how wanting something, no matter how hard, will not necessarily make you able to do it, and that even when you are able it’s not going to come free.

Actionable counterpart:

At the moment, this falls among the things that I either can’t do, or have to navigate a psychological minefield around, because that’s a problem I’ve been having. However, looking not at that, in terms of appeal, yes this is absolutely something I would want to try having in a role-play. (The ‘performing task well enough’ version seems the most practical to be used that way). Actionably, it would be the vehemence, and the getting to put myself in that space, that would be/is the greatest draw.

Advertisements

Specific Narrative Kinks: Antidehumanization

[I don’t think I’m going to be able to describe this very well yet, as it’s one where I still don’t have the full understanding of what it is for me, but I want to put it out there anyway, so.]

What do I mean by this:

The idea of dehumanization is generally that the principals are not seeing and not treating the constrict as a person. The idea of my antidehumanization kink is that the principals are not seeing and not treating the constrict as a person, but the point and the focus is that the person is there. Inside the situation where they are being treated as an object (in whatever sense) or as nothing, they are there. And, for hitting this kink for me, they’re also collected. However awful whatever is happening might be for them, they’re managing it, and they’re going to keep managing it and keep being there. And it’s this contrast between their person-presense being disregarded, and being there and that kind of self-intense/self-indomitable, that is the thing for me.

Specifics:

———-[cw: rape]———-

The place this has shown up a lot for me is gang rape. I have a character that happens to a lot, and this is always the point – to them she’s basically a party favor, so to speak, but the focus is that she’s there and they can’t shift that or erase that or overcome it.

———-[end cw for rape]———-

This would also show up for me if, for instance, someone has been made a statue, and so everyone is ignoring them as part of the furniture, but they’re actually there, watching everything.

And I mention here how it comes up in ‘uniform worlds’.

Uncertainties:

Like I said, this isn’t one I have entirely figured out. I need some way to think about more setups and more mindstates and what works for me and what doesn’t and why and how. I’m not sure if this might be properly placed as an expression of my kink for certain mindstates (for instance, my character in the first specific I gave has a very particular one). Etc. But, I know it’s something. So.

Actionable counterpart:

As tends to happen with kinks about mindstates, I’m not entirely sure how to make this work actionably. But I would be quite interested in trying. (Not with sex, though. It doesn’t appeal and I’m very certain it would be bad for me.)

Specific Narrative Kinks: Villains as constricts

What do I mean by this:

Usually, when I talk about negative power dynamics, there is a very consistent direction for the morality line. The principle is doing wrong in what they are doing to the constrict, and so the principles are the villains, while the constricts, generally, are the heroes. This is a dynamic that I like a lot and I get a lot out of. Sometimes, however, I like to reverse it. Sometimes, it is the heroes who are in power, and the villains who are the prisoners [1]. This kink is about that dynamic.

Categories:

The categories for this kink for me are generally about the attitude of the villain-constrict. At the moment, I can think of three in particular that I like.

  1. Guilt
    This is for the repentant villains. They’ve come to see the wrong of what they’ve done, and now condemn themselves for it. They likely think their new status as the constrict is correct and deserved. As such, this is basically the setup for my rather enormous kink for guilt.
  2. Irony
    These villains get the amused kind of enjoyment out of their power and out of using it, and that hasn’t changed now that they’re on the wrong end of a power dynamic. They’ll never show that their situation bothers them (if it even does). When they reference it (and they usually do, with words or gestures) it’s always with a smile, often accompanied by ironic complements to their captors. They are, however, also likely to be pragmatic, and avoid outright provoking  their more powerfully positioned captors. Since heroes are generally less interested than villains in torturing people for disrespect, they can thus create a situation where their attitude allows them to save face while they use their cooperation to advance their wellbeing. As such, they are excellent candidates for becoming boxed crook teammates for the heroes.
    Examples: Loki in SHIELD custody in Avengers has elements of this (however, since he knows/feels himself to actually be in a position of more power, he also just outright acts like a principle a lot. You can see the two sides in the beginnings of these clips versus the rest of them).

    Loki in parts of Thor: the Dark World also has elements.
    Neal Caffrey of White Collar (at least the first few episodes, which is what I watched) is an example with somewhat less villainousness.

  3. Self-Presence
    These villains are more interested in getting what they want than in having fun, and being on the wrong side of a power dynamic has in no way made them doubt their competence or success. It may be part of the plan, it may be an unplanned inconvenience that they’re sure will be dealt with shortly, but either way, they’re not going to be particularly concerned. They won’t pointlessly antagonize their captors because it’s just that – pointless. In fact, they’re unlikely to acknowledge their situation at all, and won’t act particularly differently from how they usually do when they’re not a prisoner.
    Examples: an excellent example of this is John Harrison of Star Trek: Into Darkness.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnZJjNjMg98

Actionable counterpart:

The guilt type was the dynamic in one of my best scenes ever, and it was awesome. The irony type would be incredibly fun to act, I think, but since I do want to be beaten up and such, I’d be much more interested in playing the same attitude but as a hero-constrict. Likewise for the self-presence type.

————————————–

[1] This could be seen as violating the “what the principal is doing is wrong” definition of negative dynamics. I still consider them in this category, because they’re still not positive and still specifically non-consentual. If the hero-principle is not seen as doing something wrong, it’s not because they’re acting with consent, but because their actions, in being toward a villain, are considered justified. Which can raise all sorts of interesting moral questions, but this is not the place for them.

Specific Narrative Kinks: The constrict looking down

What do I mean by this:

This is one of the self-explanatory ones, I think. For me, it includes both the action of looking down – when someone wasn’t before, and then does it – and the state of looking down, when they remain that way over a length of time.

More about this:

Measuring by the ratio of how ‘large’ something is and how much it does for me, this basically comes out as one of the strongest kinks I have – unlike many of my other important ones, it is very simple, but it’s a feelings-surge-upon-seeing-it kink for me.

In writing, I use it all the time. I have a series of stories where I strongly suspect that variations of ‘he looked down/at the ground/at the floor’ etc. are literally the most common common phrase. In general, it greatly amplifies many of my other kinks, especially aesthetic ones, and is basically a prerequisite for others – as I’ve said before, for instance, anytime I have someone kneeling, they are looking down while doing so.

Visually, it’s really strong for me. This is where I get the feelings-surge. I can get frustrated with kneeling pictures because they don’t have this and I need it. I reblogged this gif set because of the picture on the lower left, even though it’s not even a very good example, facial expression-wise. I have seriously considered buying a TV show episode that is otherwise completely horrible in terms of being utterly clueless as to what BDSM is or how it works and perpetuating basically every stereotype out there because it was the first and thus far the only thing I’ve ever seen to give focus to a moment like this. (Incidentally, that is how I figured out my kink for this).

Actionable counterpart:

Yes, and in fact multiple yeses. Looking down to me is basically the simplest and most powerful way to evoke power dynamic feelings. As such, it’s something I do a lot when I’m in roleplay – taking a looking-down position is how I begin most roleplay scenes, marking that particular boundary and the dropping into/bringing up of my headspace. I always do it when I kneel. It feels somewhat different to me when it’s me and in scene vs. a constrict in a narrative power dynamic, but its power and significance remains.

For the second yes, it actually also shows up on the other side of things for me. If I have flash submission fantasies (which here means, involving someone else’s submission) this is the likeliest thing for the flash to be, and again, it’s rather feelings-strong for me.

Specific Narrative Kinks: Sadistic praise

What do I mean by this:

Sadistic praise is when the principal says something to the constrict that in a positive dynamic would be a compliment, but instead functions as emotional torture in some way. (Note: this is distinct from Your Approval Fills Me With Shame, where the villain compliments something the hero does not see as a positive quality at all. Here, the subject of the compliment is not a problem – the problem is the person doing the complimenting, and why they’re doing it).

Categories:

This tends to come in two flavors of what makes it sadistic.

  1. It’s a threat. This tends to be common for compliments on the constrict’s endurance, strength, courage, etc. In this case, a statement by the principal like “I can see why they call you the brave one” usually implies some form of “I’m going to do horrible things to you”, whether in the form of “torturing you will be very entertaining”, “I’m taking this as a challenge and you are going to lose”, or something else.
  2. It’s a form of negative closeness. This is the one sided kind, and is therefore intended to be violating and disturbing. It’s a violation of the constrict’s emotional boundaries. Complimenting is a form of personal interaction, and here the principal is engaging in this interaction without consent, toward a person who has the opposite of a reason to welcome absolutely any level of social or emotional intimacy from them. As such, it’s a way of inflicting psychological torture.

Actionable counterpart:

I’m not sure. I think this falls into the category of things I’d need to try to figure out how I feel from/about them. I definitely do want to try and experiment with it.

Specific Narrative Kinks: Transgressing an official morality for a person-based one

What do I mean by this:

An official morality in this sense is a morality about order. It’s about things like obeying one’s commanding officer or other authority, doing things according to some set of rules, etc. A person-based morality is a morality about human life and wellbeing – saving and helping people. preventing death, etc. So the situation here is that there was some kind of conflict where acting according to one morality meant violating the other, and the person who had this choice chose to violate the official morality in favor of following the person-based morality. (The most common version of this I’ve seen is where the person’s commanding authority, usually due to incompetence of some sort, tells them to follow a course of action that would get people killed, the person realizes this, and chooses to disobey instead). The person is then punished for their transgression of the official morality.

Variations:

The way this works out can vary pretty widely (including between being a positive and negative dynamic) depending on how the transgressor and whoever they’re accountable to feel about this kind of situation. Basically, each of them can either feel (1) that person-based morality is supreme and therefore if there’s a conflict, official morality is just not important, or (2) that official morality is still important and transgressing it deserves punishment, even though following the person-based morality was correct. Finally, the punisher could feel that (3) official morality is more important, and person-based morality is not a good enough reason to violate it.

I- If the punisher feels (3), while the transgressor feels (1), this turns into an altruism-based negative dynamic. The transgressor feels that they absolutely did the right thing. That they then have to suffer for it is an injustice, but it’s an injustice they’re willing to endure for the sake of what they did.

II- If the punisher feels (3) while the transgressor feels (2), this turns into another form of non-consentual consent. The punisher is still seen in a negative light, but the transgressor also feels that  they ought to be punished for what they did, even though it was the right thing.

III- If both of them feel (2), this can be a positive dynamic with a lot of respect in it. Both of them agree that the transgressor did the right thing, both of them agree that punishment is needed. The punisher has a lot of respect for the transgressor’s strength in making the right decision and then facing the consequences. The transgressor respects the punisher for their proper leadership despite its weight.

IV- Finally, if the transgressor feels (2) while the punisher feels (1), the transgressor then carries both weights from III – not only of making a right decision they will suffer for, but also of being the driving will behind their punishment being carried out, of insisting that even though the punisher would actually have let them off, this cannot be allowed to happen, and the punishment needs to be carried out. (There’s an amazing story with such a dynamic here, which is in fact what inspired me to write this post).

(In the interest of thoroughness, to mention the other two combinations: If both of them feel (1), then there isn’t going to be any punishment or conflict, so that wouldn’t hit this kink for me. If the transgressor feels (1) while the authority feels (2), this also wouldn’t hit this kink for me, and is also a kind of interpersonal conflict that I don’t really enjoy at all).

Fantasy and reality:

I wanted to note here that even though III and IV both work out as positive dynamics, I think that having these kinds of situations in real life is a very bad idea. In real life, prioritizing person-based over official morality is both a very important thing, and something that all too often and too easily doesn’t happen. Putting any kind of penalty on it, adding any kind of deterrent to it, is therefore something that should be avoided as much as at all possible.

However, in fantasy, where I get to play with characters who absolutely will do the right thing and won’t be deterred from it, and therefore I get to watch all the feelings and power twists that these situations create, I like them quite a lot. And since this is fantasy, and no one is actually going to get hurt, this is perfectly OK.

Actionable counterpart:

Both I and II would totally be situations I’d be interested in doing roleplays of. They have a lot of very great material, but are similar enough to roleplay settings I’ve already done that I feel a lot of comfort with the idea. III and IV are more complicated. As I’ve mentioned before, the last (and only) time I tried doing a CP scene with a positive power dynamic setup, it didn’t go well, specifically feelings-wise, so I have some wariness about trying it again. Also, I think these situations, especially IV, might not work very well for whoever was on the other side of the roleplay with me. I think if I knew someone who was interested, I’d be interested in trying it with them, seeing if we can find ways to make it work. Otherwise, I think my feelings say this isn’t something I would be likely to pursue, at least with the feelings I have right now.

Specific Narrative Kinks: Uniforms

What do I mean by this:

Another one of the pretty self-explanatory ones. Also one of the narrative kinks I have that is an ‘established’ kink where a lot of people recognize it and everything. The actual interesting part for me, and hence the reason for this post, is that I recently figured out I have very specific tastes in uniforms.

How do I like it:

As far as I can see from having run into things about uniform kinks, a lot of people have a thing for ‘shiny’ uniforms – dress uniforms, the medals and polish and fancy hats.

Mine doesn’t work like that.

For the principal, I like utilitarian uniforms. I have guards, soldiers, police, etc. in a lot of my stories, and I want them to be wearing the kind of uniforms that they could effectively fight in (and, more to the point, can effectively beat someone up in). (In a relevant vein, incidentally, I actually don’t like business suits very much).

For the constrict, I have two preferences for two situations.

For the constricts who are going to get beaten up, who are going to get dragged and thrown and curl up on the floor and sob,  (for a more ’emotional’ dynamic) I like rough tunics, usually in light colors. Probably torn in places, fraying at the hems, somewhat dirty, etc. Shorts under tunics work if I’m in a more ‘modern’ world and want less of a sense of not being totally dressed. This style, to me, also carries the mental effect of focusing on the constrict currently ‘in action’, with the others, if they exist, only as vague background.

For the constricts who are in situations more about the constant presence of a power dynamic and interactions within it, and less about pain (for a more ‘stern’ dynamic), I like longer tunic-style jumper dresses on top of long-sleeved shirts, and maybe leggings under. Maybe a head-covering, maybe an apron. This style also carries the mental effect of giving more focus to the ‘background’ constricts as well.

There’s also a bit of an ‘axis’ here – a constrict in a raggedy tunic and leggings, or with something extra on top of the tunic (I’d prefer something loose, with sleeves, and that closes at the front, especially if it doesn’t have any fastenings in front and the constrict has to close it around themselves) is, to me, good to get beaten up, but also carries some of the feeling of the second type (with the leggings giving more of this feeling than the extra top).

Incidentally, the above constrict uniform styles are for girls only. By default, I don’t tend to imagine the clothes for the boys. If I think about it, I generally see long sleeved shirts and pants, but while this is consistent, and other things feel slightly off, it doesn’t really carry any ‘charge’. (The uniform style for the principal, on the other hand, applies to everyone).

Actionable counterpart:

Yes, yes, yes. I’ve done all my scening thus far in larger T-shirts (sometimes on top of shorts and/or leggings) specifically to have the tunic-thing.

I bought myself a khaki jumper and have a bookmarks folder for school uniform jumpers I was looking at online. And if I’m ever doing a scene of the second type (I never have, since due to my very eager masochism, getting hit with things tends to be a very big part of my scenes), I’d love to wear it or something else like it.