Journals and blogs discussion

A caged cock finds liberty by concentrating on life’s other pursuits rather than just chasing sex and orgasm.

However, most gallery images—probably around 98%—are uploaded by the wearers themselves, not their KHs. Instead of looking only at traditional art standards, you might find more inspiration in sources like Warhol, who elevated everyday life to art status. The repetition you notice when scrolling through photo after photo of locked penises echoes Warhol’s habit of silkscreening images repeatedly. Here, the caged penis becomes a functional object raised to 'art' simply because the artist declares it so.

> Blue Moon said: > A caged cock finds liberty by concentrating on life’s other pursuits rather than just chasing sex and orgasm. > Click to expand... Consider this as well: Is the mind of a man with a locked cock truly free to pursue erections and orgasms without distraction, or does the cage prolong that pursuit?

> Blue Moon said: > A caged cock finds liberty by concentrating on life’s other pursuits rather than just chasing sex and orgasm. > Click to expand... Thanks, that’s intriguing. I can see why this holds true subjectively for the locked male, benefiting his KH too. This raises another question: does he thereby broaden and deepen his involvement in social issues beyond just his relationship with her?

> Billus said: > However, most gallery images—probably around 98%—are uploaded by the wearers themselves, not their KHs. Instead of looking only at traditional art standards, you might find more inspiration in sources like Warhol, who elevated everyday life to art status. The repetition you notice when scrolling through photo after photo of locked penises echoes Warhol’s habit of silkscreening images repeatedly. Here, the caged penis becomes a functional object raised to 'art' simply because the artist declares it so. > Click to expand... Thanks—very interesting parallel with Warhol and conceptual art. For now, what I find amusing or slightly disruptive is the connection to Hegel’s requirement that fine art must contain the human figure as its content... I get your point about how it’s usually the locked male posting images of his own caged member, but I assume in some cases they are doing so on behalf of their KH’s free will.

How many people would classify typical pictures of a penis, a caged penis, or even an empty cage as art? I wouldn’t say so; at least, I haven’t seen one yet that qualifies. I have photos like my own, the majority showing just the cage or it being used. My goal is to inform those who don’t use this type of device rather than merely titillating the viewer’s senses or imagination. I don’t keep uncaged penis pictures because we already know what a PA looks like and what a circumcised one resembles; in my view, there’s no real benefit to having such an unremarkable photo in my CM albums. I have seen some cages that are works of art themselves (though not always practical, I might add). A picture of one of those, occupied or empty, could be considered art by some. To me, these photos depict pieces of art rather than being artworks in their own right. There are many definitions and responses to the question 'What is Art?' Some come from famous historical figures, but ultimately it depends on personal perception... what you consider art is art... though don’t expect universal agreement. Arguably, one purpose of Art is to spark discussion.

> Achedlock17 said: > Thanks, that’s intriguing. I can see why this holds true subjectively for the locked male, benefiting his KH too. This raises another question: does he thereby broaden and deepen his involvement in social issues beyond just his relationship with her? > Click to expand... Or perhaps if he truly needs to consider anything outside his relationship and its dynamic that he wouldn’t have considered or examined more deeply had he not been locked and denied.

> Achedlock17 said: > Thanks, that’s intriguing. I can see why this holds true subjectively for the locked male, benefiting his KH too. This raises another question: does he thereby broaden and deepen his involvement in social issues beyond just his relationship with her? > Click to expand... Probably only if he was already inclined that way. I’m a strict conservative, hard-working, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps kind of guy, and I expect no less from those around me. No amount of chastity could turn me into an SJW, community activist, or other rabble-rouser. I’ve got mine; let others have theirs or go without.

> filltee said: > How many people would classify typical pictures of a penis, a caged penis, or even an empty cage as art? I wouldn’t say so; at least, I haven’t seen one yet that qualifies. > I have photos like my own, the majority showing just the cage or it being used. My goal is to inform those who don’t use this type of device rather than merely titillating the viewer’s senses or imagination. I don’t keep uncaged penis pictures because we already know what a PA looks like and what a circumcised one resembles; in my view, there’s no real benefit to having such an unremarkable photo in my CM albums. > I have seen some cages that are works of art themselves (though not always practical, I might add). A picture of one of those, occupied or empty, could be considered art by some. To me, these photos depict pieces of art rather than being artworks in their own right. > There are many definitions and responses to the question 'What is Art?' Some come from famous historical figures, but ultimately it depends on personal perception... what you consider art is art... though don’t expect universal agreement. > Arguably, one purpose of Art is to spark discussion. > Click to expand... Well, I did intend to provoke just that sort of discussion, so we agree there. Also, agreement isn’t everything, so I’m not too worried about the numbers or 'how many people.' That said, no man is an island, so let me argue my case by suggesting that the CM galleries are indeed art galleries—as @Billus pointed out, at least since Duchamp, what makes something art is arguably its presence in a gallery. So what supports the idea of the Mansion (or specifically its galleries) as art spaces? The entire scenario celebrates the freedom of the human (female) spirit. There is female free will in denying the male procreative organ’s function unless she decides otherwise. This overwhelming force of femininity that permeates the Mansion places it at the vanishing point of the dynamical sublime: the view from death. For locked males, their member is as if dead, at least functionally; and ironically, this is what worried Victorians suggested to cure excessive masturbation—that one imagines oneself being dead. The Mansion offers plenty of artistic themes. Returning to images of locked penises themselves, why not? After all, Gustave Courbet’s *L’origine du monde* shocked Paris in 1866 but is now unquestionably considered art. So why exclude locked penises?

> Blue Moon said: > Probably only if he was already inclined that way. I’m a strict conservative, hard-working, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps kind of guy, and I expect no less from those around me. No amount of chastity could turn me into an SJW, community activist, or other rabble-rouser. I’ve got mine; let others have theirs or go without. > Click to expand... Thanks—it’s good to know you’re exercising your individual freedom as well, choosing at times to live within this feminine social order here in the Mansion.

I’m glad you brought up Duchamp; that’s exactly what I had in mind (*Fountain*, to be precise). > Achedlock17 said: > I get your point about how it’s usually the locked male posting images of his own caged member, but I assume in some cases they are doing so on behalf of their KH’s free will. > Click to expand... I wouldn’t make that assumption. Having never worn a cage yourself, you might be underestimating the almost obsessive drive many males have to display their penis, particularly when locked. While some undoubtedly do it because their KH directs them, I’d say the overwhelming majority show off for self-arousal or sexual humiliation.

> Billus said: > I’m glad you brought up Duchamp; that’s exactly what I had in mind (*Fountain*, to be precise). > I wouldn’t make that assumption. Having never worn a cage yourself, you might be underestimating the almost obsessive drive many males have to display their penis, particularly when locked. While some undoubtedly do it because their KH directs them, I’d say the overwhelming majority show off for self-arousal or sexual humiliation. > Click to expand... Thanks for your point; I accept that. However, isn’t there a kernel of freedom in how males exhibit their locked state? Surely 'denying nature' is a clear sign of culture rather than raw instinct? The arousal and self-humiliation stem from this act of self-denial. If so, then again, using Hegel’s terms, these images represent human freedom.

> Achedlock17 said: > Thanks for your point; I accept that. However, isn’t there a kernel of freedom in how males exhibit their locked state? Surely 'denying nature' is a clear sign of culture rather than raw instinct? The arousal and self-humiliation stem from this act of self-denial. If so, then again, using Hegel’s terms, these images represent human freedom. > Click to expand... Oh, absolutely. It is self-expression through being a literal metaphor for the struggle (of life against nature, one's own desires, and so on). The act of subjugation belies the valor inherent in the desire for freedom. Art featuring a caged penis might find similarities with Leni Riefenstahl’s work or Soviet propaganda posters. The act of struggling *becomes* the art itself, which naturally has roots traceable back to Hegel, Nietzsche, and others. Naturally, some guy locking up his junk and posting a photo here probably isn’t thinking about all this philosophical baggage; these references serve only to explain, not direct, our actions.

Coming in from the Victorian thread... > Achedlock17 said: > Much of what interests me philosophically seems to be exemplified by the political implications of the intense chastity relationships I read about in CM. Given that locking it up is not our natural state, and indeed opposes that natural state, then assuming there’s no coercion, something approaching a political miracle has occurred: the male’s mind has been changed! > Click to expand... Based on introspection and conversations with others (some in real life!), I believe several things are happening. These relate more to psychology (perhaps evolutionary) than pure philosophy, though I’m interested in your philosophical take. First and foremost, submissives—and relatedly, most of us—are masochists. This is hardwired and feels like an orientation. Femdom generally, and chastity specifically, are examples of "Super Normal Stimuli". Just as the Australian beetle prefers mating with a shiny beer bottle over duller females, just as humans struggle to *stop* eating sugary foods because in primal times honey supplies would run out before becoming harmful, Femdom and Chastity have evolved to perfectly trigger our strong submissive instincts. Not only can we not resist them, but we don’t even want to. Even better (or worse?), wearing a device creates a feedback loop that enhances our submissive feelings—and that’s an actual reason why we *want* to wear one! The submissive aspect also explains our preferred relationship stance. To feel fulfilled, I *need* to be subordinate to my wife. In addition to my masochistic urges, I *need* her to act mean so she shows who is in charge. This includes lockup periods and orgasm denial that exceed what I might negotiate for play. Related to super normal stimulation: there’s something peculiar happening regarding gender. Some of us feel more authentic when locked. Finally, I don’t think chastity negates our sex drive or rejects it entirely. Rather, we are exchanging short orgasms for indefinitely prolonged plateau phases.

> Giles_English said: > Coming in from the Victorian thread... > Based on introspection and conversations with others (some in RL!), I think there's several things going on, more to do with (evolutionary?) psychology than philosophy, though I am interested in your philosophical response. > First and foremost, submissives, and, related to that, most of us are masochists. This is pretty much hard wired. and feels awfully like an orientation. Femdom in general, and chastity in particular, are examples of "Super Normal Stimuli". Just as the Australian beetle prefers mating with a beer bottle over its less shiny female counterparts, and just as humans have difficulty *stopping *eating sugary things because in primal times the supply of honey (or whatever) would run out before it became harmful, Femdom & Chastity have evolved to perfectly trigger our already strong submissive instincts. Not only can we not resist, but we cannot want to resist. Better (worse?) yet, wearing a device sets up a feedback loop, enhancing our submissive feelings - and that's an actual reason why we want to wear one! > The submissive part also explains our preferred relationship stance. To feel fulfilled, I *need *to be subordinate to my wife. And, in addition to my masochistic urges, I *need *her to be mean in order to show that's she's in charge. This includes lockup times and orgasm denial way in excess of what I might negotiate for play. > Related to super normal stimulation; there's something weird going on around gender. Some of us feel more ourselves when locked. > Finally, I don't think chastity negates our sex drives, or is a rejection of them. Rather we are exchanging short orgasms for indefinitely prolonged plateau phases. > Click to expand... Thanks for your post. I’m a bit pressed for time at the moment so I’ll limit my reply for now to initial thoughts, as follows: In Kantian terms you are describing submission as a transcendental condition of possibility for you to have what feels like “whole” experience-it would be, as such, invariant to any and all actual experience. I can see why this might survive the evolutionary editor, as long as submissives submit to suitably skilled (in surviving) dominants. You also associate masochistic orientation as well in many cases-this seems to me to be at higher risk of being edited out by evolutionary selection pressure, although I suppose it might lead to competition amongst female dominants which could be useful in their developing deterrent skills combatting unwanted insiders to be exiled or outsiders (even if limited to the dimension of female relational aggression). The “vanilla female audience” twist to a lot of femdom in my view is such “training” in practise. However the evolutionary arguments go the contemporary philosophical question would be whether you have any freedom and if so how it could manifest itself. In your case freedom would amount to going against the super normal stimuli so as to change your (pseudo) transcendental synthetic a priori submissive orientation if persuasive enough reasons arose. In a non submissive male the test would be whether he could “choose to be submissive” (or locked) for reasons that were convincing but not compelling to him. In each case the reasons would have to overcome the “enjoyment” of the initial orientation. As input to the question of the completeness of the evolutionary perspective here, relevant would be the role language plays in submisisve orientation (eg can verbal humiliation; derogatory remarks be super normal stimuli)?

Briefly, I see lots of examples of vanilla unwitting Femdom and masochism in modern and historical culture, e.g. strenuous courtship of hard to get partners, the "friendzone" experience in adults, asymmetric relationships, Courtly Love, the trope of the henpecked husband etc... this leads me to think it's hardwired. BDSM emulates all this at more intense levels, and without the "natural" cutoffs. Verbal humiliation fits this pattern: to be humiliated is to accept a lesser status. From this perspective, most of the discourse around power exchange is just a "skin". The real understanding is to be had in observing what people actually do. This also explains how vanilla partners can be drawn in. Though fetishes aren't contagious, power exchange feels natural and a partner with the right personality will also slowly succumb to super stimulation. (My *conjecture *is that male submissiveness has an adaptive advantage in terms of raising the next generation, and perhaps enabled younger males a chance to breed by hanging around an alpha male's mate. Masochism on its own might be an aspect of mental toughness.) Now the tricky part. > Achedlock17 said: > ....the contemporary philosophical question would be whether you have any freedom and if so how it could manifest itself. In your case freedom would amount to going against the super normal stimuli so as to change your (pseudo) transcendental synthetic a priori submissive orientation if persuasive enough reasons arose. In a non submissive male the test would be whether he could “choose to be submissive” (or locked) for reasons that were convincing but not compelling to him. In each case the reasons would have to overcome the “enjoyment” of the initial orientation. > Click to expand... I think I understand the question. In less precise English, it would be: "Can we change our submissive orientation?" My answer is, "By definition, no." I am free to *not submit*, but not free to *stop being a submissive*. I can (could) choose my partners, but not my dynamic. For example, hypothetically, if my wife accidentally drank too much at a reception, I would take charge and get her home, but once she had sobered up I would take orders from her. Similarly, my (now very distant) relationship history shows me going from one (mostly vanilla) dominant partner to another. Had explicit power exchange been an option back then, I would still have moved from one relationship to another, but would always have been submissive. All that freedom is severely limited by pragmatic considerations and undercut by masochism. If I baulk at a submissive act, I may damage our Femdom relationship. It's therefore in my interests to take the rough with the smooth. Meanwhile, my masochism rejoices whenever I am nudged out of my comfort zone. (This makes consent more nuanced than some dommes would like!). The vanilla man *might *enjoy some of the sensations around Femdom and chastity, especially heightened arousal. Through masturbation, the intensity of his adverse reaction to these kinks might turn into a fetish. One or both of these together might make him an enthusiastic "bottom". However, he couldn't choose to be submissive any more than he could choose to be gay. (However, he could discover unexplored aspects of his sexuality).