In a kind of incestuously male chastity way, I want to put my slant on an excellent blog post by Thumper, ‘Push me, please’.
Apart from the fact he’s absolutely correct in the nice things he says about me (yes, this hubris with my tongue stuck very firmly in my cheek), he raises a very interesting point, which, in my humble way, I’d boil down to the question of does granting control also necessarily involve submission and domination?
I know this is a frequently discussed topic, at least here in the real world where the fantasy of female superiority is clearly seen as just that – a fantasy – but I think some useful perspectives came out of Thumper’s post and from the comments that followed (incidentally,if you really want to yank a true female supremacist’s chain, point out their believing females are superior to males by virtue of their genetic heritage is qualitatively no different from saying white people are superior to black ones, or round-eyed ones superior to slant-eyed ones. It’s amusing to watch them try to rationalise their bigotry with all manner of illogic, stupidity and, finally, ad-hominem attacks).
For Thumper, male chastity necessarily involves submission, because that’s how he’s feeling. You can’t argue with feelings. If someone says, “I’m feeling this, that, and the other” you can’t refute them, because feelings are internal, personal and entirely subjective.
Note this is not the same as saying your feeling about something is necessarily correct. So, for example, if you say,“I just feel the Earth is flat”, your feeling is inarguable; but your conclusion is demonstrably wrong. It’s the same for those silly female supremacists, too: you can’t argue with the fact they feel women are “superior”, but when it comes to demonstrating it as fact, or even providing evidence for it, they simply fail (oh, and how).
An interesting question, then, and I don’t know the answer so I’m not being rhetorical, is can submission and domination occur independently? Meaning, if Thumper feels he’s submitting in his male chastity, but his lady doesn’t feel she’s dominating, where are they? My guess is both are true, since both are just feelings and ‘twixt the ears.
This is an important point, because, if both can be true, it shows quite convincingly neither is necessary for male chastity, not in any objective sense, at any rate.
Someone also asked the other day, how do I reconcile my claims of equality with my consensual control of John’s orgasms and his male chastity? I’ve never actually made this claim so far as I remember, in any case. And if I have, I’ve been sloppy with my language, because proving equality would be equivalent to disproving inequality, and that’s not possible, just like it’s not possible to disprove Russell’s Teapot.
I merely ask the female supremacists to produce evidence to support the claims they’re making – they make the claims and it’s incumbent on them to support them if they expect to be taken seriously. What we do know empirically is societies tend to be more peaceful, successful and just when we assume equality in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
In any case, where is the contradiction in the notion of consensual control and equality?
I used an analogy with Thumper yesterday to explain how, for us, male chastity doesn’t have to involve submission and domination. And the same analogy also addresses the point about control and equality.
John and I work out. We have a well-equipped gym in our garage. John works out alone, but I get him to “spot” me and help me along.
And he makes me work hard. I get tired and hot and cranky and try all my usual girly-bullshit tricks to try to get him to let me off lightly.
But he won’t. He doesn’t take my shit and he “makes” me lift heavy. He gives no quarter, and really, I know that’s best for me and he’s being an uncompromising bastard in the interests of my long-term happiness with my shape, weight and health.
Yet at the time, I really do want him to be nice, fluffy and kind, just like men do with their women when male chastity really starts to bite.
And it’s entirely consensual. John has been quite clear in saying if I don’t obey the “rules” and lift like I’m told and eat like I’m told, he won’t do it with me. If I want the benefits, I have to obey the “rules”.
Thisis not dominance and submission, though. This is John helping me do something for my long term benefit and pleasure that I’d find difficult or impossible to do by myself.
Submission, domination and equality simply don’t come into it. They’re irrelevant.
And with us it’s very much the same with male chastity.
I’d be very surprised to find we were alone in this.
P.S. Today sees the first issue of “Something for the Weekend” going out, a weekly newsletter available to everyone who’s elected to receive my free Chastity Guide. So if you’re not on the list, I recommend you get on it now.
P.P.S. A plug for the recently resurrected Male Chastity Forum. To quote Thumper a second time:
“One of the things I especially liked about MCF back in the day (before it was hacked or whatever) was the seemingly large number of gay device wearers who were there. Maybe that’s what kept the French maids out. Anyway, it was a great place and, hopefully, it will be one again. I encourage you to go check it out and, if you’re so inclined, create an account and add your two bits. Unless you’re wearing a device and a dress right now. In which case, there’s already a large and vibrant community out there for you (and you know where it is)
Not, of course, that there’s anything wrong with that….”
Discover the quick and easy way to get your wife to lock you in strict male chastity until your balls want to explode and you're begging for a release you just are NEVER going to get!
Just leave your details below, click the button... and I'll take care of the rest:


{ 4 comments }
You left off the "not that that's anything wrong with that" part!
I don't begrudge anyone their freaky kink, I'd just rather not have to wallow around in it while indulging in mine…
Well, yes I did. I thought it was obvious – only a retard would think you meant anything else. However… yesterday showed me how many retards there are out there… so I’ll edit it
Never underestimate the ability of others to be stupid…
And I was just pulling your chain. I didn't really care that you left that part out.
Of course the big problem is that people use these words, "submission" and "dominance" in multiple often conflicting ways.
For the BDSM play community they are roles they enjoy, take on and put off, switch around at times, and they involve a lot of ritualised behaviours.
For the M/s and D/s lifestyle communities they have more to do with authority, power, control and the responsibilities that those entail.
For third wave feminists they are about the patriarchy and abuse.
One could go on forever.
As someone whose first degree was in biology I tend to look at them as fundamentally about evolved survival strategies that are wired into the nervous system that in vertebrates are essentially emotions. I'm using the term emotion as it is commonly used in affect neuroscience which is a little different from day to day use. They are fast response programs that prepare an organism to meet an environmental challenge and that preparation includes changes in the way the brain functions and the behaviour that results. As survival programs their successful deployment is accompanied by positive feelings and that is what leads people to seek them out.
Humans make disentangling what is going on almost impossible because we live in social groups with a huge intertwining of culture.
One of the big problems the latter causes when it comes to something like chastity play is our tendency to look at behaviour and extrapolate from it to what the motivations that underlie it are, and people often get this wrong. In fact what they attribute it to tells us more about them than about what is actually going on.
An example, decades ago I was engaged in some fun with a couple. She was the “slave” and was sucking her "Masters" cock and I started to beat her derrière with a tawse. He looked a little worried and motioned for me to stop which I did. At that point she stopped, gave him a look and said something, I forget what, and he suggested I continue. It was suddenly very clear who was the dominant of that couple and it wasn't the one getting a BJ from his kneeling naked slavegirl.
Now the play BDSM community defines dominance and submission by behaviours and roles so to them chastity play looks like the keyholder is the dominant and the locked the submissive. I suspect the man or woman on the street has a not dissimilar outlook and certainly for the majority of pro-femdoms and their clients that too is the case.
Can dominance and submission exist in isolation. Yes and no. There have to be, at least, two people. The programs don't work without the social element. Having said that it is possible to use a person substitute be it fantasy, fiction, porn, an internet mistress whatever. It is however certainly possible, and common, for one person in a relationship to experience dominance or submission whilst the other doesn't. Trouble is it doesn't work well. The two emotional programs are designed to work together. The D/s keyholder going through the motions is ultimately more frustrating, in a bad way, than someone refusing to play.
Anyway I've rambled enough. My view on this topic is what makes it dominance and submission or not is whether the individuals concerned are motivated to activate and enjoying the underlying emotional programs or not and even then that can be trumped by an underlying power exchange structure. You can't tell that from the activities or display behaviours involved.
Michael