more on back whipping
Wow, the weather's finally brightened, hasn't it? We had our first picnic of the summer over the weekend, and although the ground was damp and the rain drove us home early in the evening, today is glorious. I'm full of energy. (Who knows, maybe that energy will finally assist me in finishing the new version of my website I'm working on ... it's been a long time in coming.)
There are lots of things I want to write about at the moment - not least the new violent porn bill which was passed last Wednesday. My thoughts on that are taking a while to pull together, so in the meantime I want to return to the subject of back whipping. I touched on this in my previous entry, but I don't really feel like I communicates my feelings about it successfully.
A little while ago, a reader asked me about this by email:
1. What do you think of bare back whipping (see the pictures below)?
2. Take a look at the pictures on the links below. I really enjoy them because of the dynamics between the dominant and the submissive girl in these scenes. Just look at the determination is the eyes of the girls executing the strokes and how the submissive girls are working with their bodies to stand the pain. Pretty nice pictures, don't you think?
After thanking him for the fantastic photos, I replied as follows:
I have an interesting relationship with bare back whipping. On the one hand, it's definitely a part of my real-life play and I enjoy it as a form of punishment. I find it very realistic - it's associated with real, historical punishments and scenarios in my head, and as such it carries an edginess which I find very powerful. Well-executed back flogging can be a powerful, ritualistic thing and I've been known to be put in an altered state of consciousness after a prolongued whipping - the effect it has on the body is extremely powerful, and it can very easily put me into trance!
On the other hand, the physical sensations of back whipping don't have the same erotic charge for me that being punished on my bottom does. It's not that it's not connected to my masochism, because the meditative trance state evoked through back whipping is certainly the result of endorphine stimulation. It's that it connects to my kink in a different way. There's an instant, primal, sexual jolt connected to the idea of being spanked or whipped on my bottom, breasts or thighs. It's a highly erotically charged concept. Back whipping - like hand punishment - doesn't carry that instinctive erotic charge. But like hand punishment, it's a powerful psychological thing. And because the part of the body being punished isn't one which will allow the punishment to be sexually enjoyable on a physical level, the punishment can have a more harsh, non-consensual feel to it. And that's very powerful as well.
I think that comes closer to describing it. It's not that one type of CP connects to my sexual masochism and another doesn't, but rather that they connect to it in very different ways.
Remember my kinky friend who punished me with a quirt he'd made himself? His implement of choice is leather floggers. He has a beautiful collection, in various shades and types of leather, most if not all of them made by himself. He always takes a couple out with him when he goes to play parties or clubs, and most of the kinky girls in our social circle have tasted his florentine flogging at one time or another. Any public scene he plays will draw a crowd, and he invariably receives compliments on the grace and power of his flogging style for the rest of the evening.
During the same evening on which I earned a whipping with the quirt for keeping him waiting and making him late, he also used his floggers on me - a couple of floggers made of soft, heavy, straight-cut leather thongs, and a cat o' nine tails with harsh, plaited leather tails, which he swapped in when he wanted to step things up a notch. This was at the club, long before my punishment later in the night. It wasn't the first time he'd flogged me, but it was the first time he'd done so on a night when I was submitting to him alone, and neither of my Doms were present. Here's what I wrote about it in my personal diary:
The dungeon was crowded and not very well arranged, but we created a space and he put me on the cross for a flogging scene. We'd done this once before (at Torture Garden eight months ago), but I was his tonight and it made all the difference. He's very skilled with floggers. The florentine strokes started light, teasing me, drawing my hips back towards him as I ached for deeper sensations, and then pushing me back with sharper force that left me limp. The crescendo built to tidal waves of sensation that crashed over me. I floated in place, helpless; feeling as if I was being washed up on a shore, like driftwood, again and again. But he never quite let me drown - always catching me as my mind was going blank under the onslaught, soothing me, bringing me down before he started to build up the pace once again. He played me like a puppet and my body danced on the cross.
It ended with a series of blows that built up and up until I felt like I was standing under a waterfall, just letting the unbelievable force of it rain down on me, offering myself up to it. On the last crack between my shoulder blades my whole body sagged and I felt the tears start to flow. He stroked me, soothed my skin and took me into his arms, and I was laughing and crying, almost incredulous at the emotional force of what he'd done to me. It felt like catharsis, like a floodgate in me had been opened, leaving me weightless and shaking and completely blissed out.
Flogging doesn't really tap into my kink in some ways. My masochism responds to it, but it doesn't awaken that desire in me, that serpent uncoiling at the base of my spine, that other forms of CP and BDSM do. It seems almost asexual in some ways: a powerful physical and emotional act, like a meditation or a massage... intimate, deeply submissive and yes, the endorphines flood through me. But the sensations aren't erotic per se. It's subtly other, and I can't explain it. But it's intensely powerful.
I was spaced out for ages after that. I sat on his lap, still topless and the skin of my back hot to the touch, relaxed and happy while he talked to people. He got a lot of compliments and I talked a little about the scene and how it had affected me. We both agreed there had been a very intense connection between us. I remember some of the strokes communicating themselves to me like words, and the arcing of my body in response, like a conversation or like sex. I remember saying his name aloud in my head over and again as I let the pain wash over me.
10 comments:
My own feelings towards back whipping are somewhat similar, I guess. It doesn't have the same erotic intensity that a punishment on the bottom does - neither in terms of the physical sensation nor in how the marks look (that visual sensation is very important to me, too).
On the other hand, back whipping, and the hands-above-the-head position usually associated with it, has a nice psychological touch. The sense of authenticity, and also the vulnerability. There is just something "primordial", for lack of a better word, about someone tied and whipped in that position.
Looking forward to your thoughts on the "violent porn" legislation.
Not to mention the great boobs they are showing
I have to admit I too thought of some of these images when I heard about the proposed legislation.
I am very confused in my feelings about being whipped in that way. It automatically makes me think of the punishments within Sharpe or Hornblower and the connotations of shame for such a thing to happen to a woman at that time. The idea is very arousing... but Im not sure Im as brave as you :)
Hello Pandora!
I'd first like to thank you for your time and bestow upon you the dubious honor of being the first commenter on my humble little bard-of-a-blog. I was getting a little lonely there, but your comments were so nice that you made my morning.
As to back whipping, I'm glad you brought that up. I, myself, have never been whipped, but I've scene it on TV and I'm an American, so I'm pretty sure I'm an expert. I've been dickering around with a whipping tale, but the story hasn't explain itself to me yet enough to write it. I must think it over until my muse decides I've earned it. My muse, by the way, is stingy as all Hell.
I'm primarily a spanking man, but I think most people into spanking have to have thoughts on good old fashioned flogging like modern architects have thoughts on the pyramids. They are so closely linked that the human brain has to compare.
Too me, the real distinction between spanking and whipping is not pain. If a hairbrush is applied to the butt, hard enough, it can brake anyone's will eventually. A light whipping, in contrast, could be nothing more than a massage. Pain is just information.
No, the real difference between being spanked and being whipped is dignity.
Going over someone's knee for a spanking, even an excruciating one, is inherently humble and silly. It is the very definition of childishness. I mean... you're getting spanked. How do you get spanked like a uptown lady? Holding a cup of tea with the little finger out? Spankings are enjoyable, but absurd.
No, the difference between whipping and spanking is the potential for dignity. It is possible for a person to be whipped yet remain defiant, in self-possession, even dominant if only in spirit. Of course, if the whipping goes on and on it can kill the whippee (that is to a word!) but there is a chance that a strong, willful person can show reasonably control until passing out, thus claiming victory over the whipper.
Flogging is serious business. Flogging was the norm for a long, looooonnnggggg time. There is the aspect of a martyr with a whipping. The old days of the Bible or Caesar or Roland. What martyr or patriot refused to repent or disavow during a spanking?
I see a woman stripped to the waist, rags covering her hips and legs; her eyes cold and forward, as if she stood there by choice, her arms held up by rope. A man, well dressed in the height of fashion, stands behind her and asks a question. She does not even say "no". She just stands there, arms up and chest naked, and wonders if she left the iron on. The man whips her for some time. She screams, she crumples, she writhes, but the whipping has to stop. The object is not to kill her, but rather to bend her will to walk in lock-step with his.
As time goes on after the lash lays limp and idle, she overcomes the pain and regains her mind. She grips the ropes around her wrists and pulls herself up to her feet with the very bonds that restrain her, gives the man a brief, defiant eye and tight lip, then faces forward and wonders if Jack Bauer is going to find that bomb in Los Angeles next episode of "24". The man with the whip, meanwhile, has been emasculated. He can start to whip again, and may, but the action can be become a cycle that proves him a coward and her a saint.
Now, here I describe a paragon. I, myself, would yell and beg like a little girl should I be treated such. But there is potential for dignity that I simply choose not to rise to. That is a choice- buckle or stand on pride against force.
Me getting spanked? Where is the choice? How am I going to get spanked and act like John Wayne? Can't be done.
PB
Ludwig - Yes, there's a huge association in the human consciousness between back whipping and "authentic" punishment, which is brilliant to tap into. I guess the distinction historically primarily relates to the age of the person being punished. Back whipping is the default for adult judicial punishment, whereas CP on the bottom has traditionally been reserved for young people - school and home; ensigns and midshipmen - adult women in domestic settings, and adults being humiliated by having a child's punishment inflicted on them. This ties into Pallidbust's insightful comments on dignity below. There are exceptions, of course, but I think the image of back whipping gains a lot of its power from its association with the punishment of adults. The stripping of power from someone who already has it gives it an edge over the powerless of a child, who has little anyway. And the association of back whipping with military, judicial and political contexts lends it added bite. This is grown-up CP. Humiliation can be a part of it, but back-whipping has an innate impersonality, a lack of intimacy. The whipper is removed from the victim by a considerable distance; they may not know each other. A far cry from the comfortable and embarrassingly exposed familiarity of going over someone's knee.
Pandora, you are right that our most common association with canings is probably a school setting. But cane strokes on the buttocks were used in judicial punishments and in the military as well. The judicial practice, sterning from the British colonial system, is retained in Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei to this day. Of course, such canings are much more severe than the school version. But there are such cases, so for me, a cane can also mean the punishment of adults. It all depends on the particular kinky setting.
For me, the main difference between caning and back whipping lies not in the type of scenario that I associate with it, nor with dignity. Pallidbusts's comments are very interesting indeed (thank you for that!), but I disagree to a point - it's also possible to try and retain one's dignity during a caning, and again, it largely depends on the type of scenario and the psychology.
The main difference, for me, lies in the fact that a caning seems more "civilized", somehow. I tend to associate it with very formal, very ritualistic punishments. On the other hand, there is something "primordial" about a back whipping - I've used the word before and I think it fits. Whippings are a form of punishment that I associate with a more "archaic" setting, less formal. You just tie up a slave and whip away. For me, there is an instinctive connection with slavery, ownership, and usually with a more ancient, less refined setting.
JP1701 - they are quite perfect, aren't they? Another great thing about the arms-above-head position - it lifts the breasts and stretches the tummy in a way that's flattering for quite a lot of women :) Not that we spanking models are vain, of course ...
Cake - which images, sorry? My aside about the new legislation didn't refer to the rest of the post, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
The historical associations are a huge part of the appeal. I'd never fantasise about having my back whipped in the abstract (as I sometimes do about CP to the bottom), but in some of my favourite punishment scenarios back whipping is the only plausible method of punishment. It's a reluctant appeal for me - I'd be happier, I think, if all my fantasies could realistically focus on bottom punishment - but realism is sufficiently important to me that I'm not going to edit the scenario. The context is what makes it erotic; my body's chemical response to the pain gets me high, but it doesn't get me off.
Pallidbust - thanks for your long and insightful comment! I think your analysis works well when contrasting OTK spanking with back whipping, but I'm with Ludwig - my interest in CP goes well beyond spanking, and I'm also into quite a few things that are normally categorised as BDSM. When I'm doing a shoot humiliation and remorse are often the key in my responses; but when I'm subbing in private I do try and retain my dignity as long as possible. Sometimes my dom will try and break that dignity (and if they want to, they always can) but often he'll encourage me to maintain my poise and grace, to take my punishment like a dignified young lady rather than a snivelling little girl. So I don't agree with your thesis, at least as far as it relates to my own kink. Humiliating, intimate, undignified spankings are one way in which CP can be powerful - but it's not the only way, and I don't think stoicism and dignity are reserved for backwhipping alone.
Ludwig - Do you know, I think you've got it? Yes. There's a roughness about back whipping - a savageness. It's brutal and basic.
That doesn't, of course, mean it can't be ritualised. In fact I'd say ritual is as important, to me, with back whipping as with any other punishment scenario. The tied hands; the whipping post; the exposed back; the silent or jeering crowd; the count. It's not essential - I find the image of a slave just strung up and flogged without ceremony extremely hot - but I don't think you can make a distinction between formal/informal. It is, however, very hard to whip someone's back in a way that's restrained, civilised, refined. No matter what the social setting, the act of whipping is one that carries a savage undercurrent of brutality. There is no subtlety in a flogging, and no delicacy.
Well, I don't know if I've "got it" - there is no right and wrong here, just subjective (and often very different) associations we have with various implements and types of punishment. But yeah, for me at least (and apparently for you as well), there is definitely a primordial savagery to a back whipping, something that a caning (even a very severe one) is somehow unlikely to have.
You're right that my dinstincion of "formal" / "informal" isn't really fitting - whippings can be very formal and ritualistic, too. Perhaps the terms "savage" vs. "civilized" capture it better, even though they, too, can be misleading I suppose.
I love how you mentioned a "jeering crowd" in your description of that fantasy whipping scene. Now that's hot indeed. I do have a faible for "CP with an audience", I must say - not all the time, mind you, but it can be a wonderful thing for special occasions.
I, of course, yield to your superior expertise. My knowledge of CP is mostly theoretical... damn it.
I like this:
"The whipper is removed from the victim by a considerable distance"
That's something I'm going to think about. The immediate contact between spanker and spankee is obvious, even centered around the sexual organs. Whippings take place at a distance and, often, while both parties stand. It is less intimate. There is something arraigned and non-spontaneous about the affair of a whipping. Hmmm...
Yes, I agree, Ludwig is on to something in whippings being "primordial". Perhaps a whipping is more pure for a human's desire truly dominate another human, as apposed to a human's desire to spank another human into compliance.
Why are there red squiggly lines under "human's"? I mystery for the ages I guess.
PB
Post a Comment