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

Nonconsensual Consent

There is a very particular set of dynamics that is among my favorites. It’s an entirely negative-dynamic set, and it is defined by three main things. First, the constrict is suffering. Second, the principal is being horrible and what they’re doing is absolutely wrong. Third, there is a context in which the constrict’s answer to the question ‘is this what you want?’ is ‘yes’, because they are gaining a benefit from the situation that, for them, is enough for this.

This set can be subdivided into three categories, each of which has its own defining factors:

1) The principal creates the choice

The set up for this is a situation in which the constrict has a choice between alternatives, and they pick an alternative that involves their suffering because the other alternatives are, to them, worse. (So, the benefit of their suffering is, ‘these other things do not happen’). It has two necessary parts. First, the principal has to know about this situation, and to either have set it up, or to be perpetuating it on purpose. Second, as defined by the overall dynamic-set, on the contrict’s side, “the other alternative is worse” is not enough. It has to be “I want this.”

Maybe the constrict is the captain of a ship that has encountered the principal’s more powerful ship, and the principal demands that the captain surrender themselves, or else they’ll open fire. Maybe the constrict is the principal’s ‘favorite prisoner’, and as long as the principal has them, they leave everyone else alone. And to the constrict it is “yes, if it preserves everyone else’s lives, I want to go to them”, “yes, if it means they’re not hurting anyone else, I want them to hurt me”.

2) The situation creates the choice

In this, the constrict also has a choice, and they also choose something that means they suffer. However, the situation was not caused or set up by the principal.

Maybe the constrict is a government agent posing as a slave to find out vital information about what the principal is doing. Maybe the constrict has a loyalty bond to the principal, so giving the principal what they want is their greatest desire, even if what the principal wants is their suffering. Maybe the constrict loves the principal in a way that makes any interaction with them better than no interaction at all.

The situation gives the constrict something they want – information to help bring down the principal, the principal’s happiness, the principal’s attention – and to the constrict, the suffering they endure for this is worth it.

3) The constrict creates the choice

In this, the benefit that the constrict is getting out of the situation is their suffering itself.

Maybe they feel very guilty about something, and feel that suffering is what they deserve or the only way they can atone. Maybe they’re suffering as a martyr for a cause, faith, or movement, and believe that the more martyrs suffer, the more honor/glory/blessing there is in it.

So, their own suffering is exactly what they want.

——————————————————————————————————————————

A note about the title: When I sat down to write this post, I realized it needed a title, and that that title needed to be/would be the name for the dynamic. So I brainstormed names, and this is the one I came up with. In this way, I’m identifying it as a kind of inverse of consensual nonconsent. In consensual nonconsent, there is a surface ‘no’, but what is happening is actually consentual. Here there is a surface ‘yes’, but what is happening is actually absolutely nonconsensual.

I’d thought about the nonconsent while I was still brainstorming this post, and realized that was also an important defining factor. For case #1, it’s a straightforward one – case #1 is about threats, and coercion is not consent.

For the others, it can be a bit more complicated. The defining factor there is that the principal either doesn’t care about the constrict’s consent, or doesn’t want it. If the principal in the love example in case #2 enjoyed hurting people, but would never do it to someone unwilling, and the constrict who loved them said “I love you like this, so I am willing”, that would be different. If the principal in case #3 arranged everything with the suffering-desiring constrict, or had the magic power to detect people who wanted to suffer and then hurt only those people, that would be different. But those would be different dynamics, and that is not what’s happening in the dynamics of this set. Here, the principal doesn’t care, their desire is just the suffering, and that they happened to get a victim who is in some way willing doesn’t mitigate their actions at all.