Munch or no Munch?

If you are like her, this article does not concern you.

OK, here I am again with "S&M 101 for dummies, by a dummy".

If you are not really into BDSM, stop reading here and stay the hell away from it. 

Once you start picking up the ethic framework that informs it - the set of behavioral rules that is all that keeps a lot of stuff bordering on abuse from trespassing into becoming full blown, horrifying  rape - it becomes difficult not to feel that a lot of "normal" sexual behaviors - even romantic ones - are outright abusive and historically condoned only because conductive to a heightened reproductive ratio.

Society needs kids and, to promote reproduction no matter what, it has always made allowances to questionable behaviors like, say, having sex while inebriated. 

The drunken intercourse is an unspoken mainstay of many "traditional" cultures.

But if someone has a BDSM session in that condition, or accepts to play with someone that is intoxicated, he or she is every bit of an ass-hole as if they were driving under influence. 

And, yes, there is really NO REASON why it should be any different for "standard" sex.


As often, this short piece was spawned by a tiny bit of real life, i.e. by discussions with someone on chat about meeting at a café-munch.

Really, the place where I live is so underpopulated and lingeringly catholic that getting persons together to meet and talk about "whatever" over a cup or coffee (hot chocolate, in my case) already encounters some resistance.

Namely, there are quite some that prefers to hook-up on a strictly personal level, rather than to meet someone in a group.

Or, better said, rather than showing their face around at all.

In reality, I am pretty sure that it is mostly social phobia rearing its ugly, ugly head.

In fact, as far as situations go, meeting a bunch of fellow kinksters dressed in civilian, in a café and during the day is about as safe as it gets.

It can also be more than a bit illusion-shattering, as most of the presents to this type of  reunion are boringly normal, though my opinion on the matter may be severely biased.

After all, I am probably the oddest ball around here, and I am as boringly average as possible  (or maybe not, broadly speaking, what with the languages and all, but kinkily speaking, absolutely).

If someone is not comfortable with going to such a meeting, though, he or she should not be any eager to have a one on one encounter, even in a public space, especially if they have a strong submissive leaning.

It has already happened - and just in the small circle of people that I directly know of! - that a domineering character, step by step, has led another person into her sub-space (a mental condition akin to an hypnotic trance, that is known to befall persons with strong submissive inclination when they meet a congenial dominant) and from it, up to take a walk in the park and, once in a secluded spot...

Nothing too gruesome, just a blowjob.

But the bottom, when it snapped out of "sub-space", realized that the consent to it was more than a bit questionable, even if formally it had been asked , and freely given.

In reality, from a BDSMer point of view, the whole episode configure a form of sexual  molestation, just one tiny - very tiny - step removed from actual rape.  

(Remember that pesky BDSM ethic... things that raise no objection in "straight  and narrow" sex life, like warming things  up and then asking for new plays in the middle of the encounter,  smells like two weeks old fish, when you start looking at them through its lens).

It is the reason why the outline of the play should always be discussed beforehand - if the sub is made of "the right stuff", by the time everybody is warm and comfortable he or she will agree to a whole lot of stuff that will irk them awfully, the day after.

The kicker? The dominant in this story was a newbie, too, and he didn't even realize what was happening - that the bottom was not necessarily able to give an informed content any more, by the time that sexual act was asked (Of course, some would point that the sub was at fault as well, as it has allowed itself to be "intoxicated" by the dom's charm).

Because he applied a set of "vanilla ethics" - which are based upon the fact that neither partner is expected to ever cede control over itself,  but is it always so? I  doubt it - to what was already a BDSM situation, in which one of the parts was very likely to cede control without a truly conscious decision, he ended up sliding into a dangerously ambiguous territory.. 

If they had met in a munch, half the presents or more would have realized it and, probably, objected that the play was degenerating.

IF.