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: You don’t deserve better

What do I mean by this:

This when the attitude toward the constrict is ‘You are being treated badly, and you don’t deserve better. People have human rights, but you [because you’re a criminal, or a political prisoner, or not human, or whatever] don’t count as a person like that, don’t have those rights, don’t get to expect better than this’.

Details and a distinction:

So, recently I found a Tumblr I’ve found incredibly interesting {here if anyone is curious. Content warning beyond this blog’s usual level for extreme dehumanization, graphic content, and vor} whose owner has a kink for people-as-animals – where the principals’ attitude toward the constrict is like the culturally mainstream attitude toward cattle animals, (or really even worse). This does not appeal to me. The reason this does not appeal to me is that it’s basically about ignoring the constrict’s ‘humanity’ entirely. The fact that these are people, that they have intelligence and thoughts and feelings and everything, is being completely ignored.

I, meanwhile, prefer, when this is acknowledged, but not treated as important. “Yes, you have capabilities, thoughts, feelings, intelligence, creativity, a story and a mind of your own. And, this doesn’t matter, you still don’t count as a person with human worth and rights”.

This can be acknowledged by the principal themselves. For instance, a fanfic I really like involves a constrict being used as the subject of medical experiments by principals who also rape and torture him for fun. However, occasionally they need him to save the world, which he does, and meanwhile and after they keep treating him exactly the same way. It can also be ignored by the principal, but acknowledged by the narrative. But it needs to be there.

And in fact in many cases, the stronger the contrast between the constrict’s apparent worth, and how they are treated, the more the situation will appeal to me. I often like constricts who are geniuses, or have special powers, or do something important or even invaluable. Part of this is, I think, my general attraction to competence. But part of it is specific to this kink, because this kink, like my preferred derogatives, is about worth to me, and the contrast makes it felt the most.

Actionable counterpart:

I think basically any roleplay I do invokes this by default, since I am seeing the constrict as a person by virtue of playing them. However, this kink being even more a part of things is definitely something I enjoy a lot, and it was a central part of one of my favorite roleplays to date. So, yes.

Constricts Who are Not Defiant

As noted in the defiance post, aside from different kinds of scenarios involving defiance, there are also many scenarios in which the constrict is not defiant to begin with. Alternatively, some constricts start out defiant, but become compliant, while some are defiant sometimes, and compliant other times. Either way, however, since non-defiance is an absence of something, and not a presence, it doesn’t so much determine the scenario as originate from a state of mind.

So, an exploration of some states of mind that lead to the constrict being non-defiant:

1)    The threat of the principal. The power dynamic between the principal and the constrict means that the principal holds the potential for hurting the constrict. The constrict is probably aware of this, either just due to the situation, or to something more explicit- perhaps the principal has a reputation they have heard about, or has actually threatened or hurt them or someone else (If the constrict starts out defiant, this can also be an outcome of #3 on the defiance list). The constrict wants to avoid getting hurt, and so complies with the wishes of the principal. This generally manifests in one of two emotional ways (which can be mixed together in varying ratios).

  1. Terror. The constrict is afraid of the principal, and this fear is in control of them. They might be shaking, crying, begging, etc. It’s unlikely that they’re even thinking about defiance. Some principals enjoy this manifestation- in fact, for some it is their goal in whatever they are doing. Other can find it irritating.
    • This is the dynamic that I have actually roleplayed. It is a lot of fun, involving both a threatening principal, which I enjoy, and very ‘active’ acting.
  2. Pragmatism. The constrict may still be afraid (and often is), but they are controlling this fear enough to be thinking more clearly. However, being aware of their situation, they come to the conclusion that defying/antagonizing the principal will harm them more than benefit them, so they refrain from it. Alternatively, this can be combined with limited amounts of defiance- the constrict decides that some things are important enough to them to be worth suffering for, but everything else is not, and they save their energy for the important things. This is then very compatible with #2 from defiance.
    • I generally really love this set-up, and would like to try roleplaying it. However, this would be a very different kind of scene- this situation is largely in the constrict’s head, and would need to be brought into the scene with dialogue. (For example, the principal might ask the constrict why they are not defiant). I do not at all think this is a bad thing though.

2)    Acceptance/acquiescence. In this situation, the constrict does not need to be intimidated into complying, because they already agree, for others reasons, that complying is what they ought to do. Again, this generally takes two forms.

  1. Attitude toward the event. For whatever reason, the constrict agrees that the negative things happening to them should, in fact, be happening to them. This is most common in a punishment dynamic in which the constrict agrees the punishment is deserved.
    • I would love to play this as well. This situation would also need to be expressed in dialogue, but for here, I think this could happen very naturally, and again the idea of such dialog appeals to me a lot.
  2. Attitude toward the principal. The constrict has feelings for the principal (love, loyalty, devotion, etc, often in rather twisted forms) in such a way that anything the principal wishes them to endure, they will accept enduring.
    • I think this would be interesting to try. Again, it is a ‘mostly in the contrict’s head’ situation, and would need to be treated accordingly.

A note on #2) in general: some constricts have or develop these feelings on their own. Others are mindscrewed into them. The first version appeals to me generally, while the second has absolutely appealed to me in some instances, but can also very much be the kind of unappealing where I want nothing to do with it, so thought and care would be required in any scene involving it.