Words of warning and welcome:

This is very much my blog, so don't be surprised if this doesn't follow accepted patterns and norms. Obviously it started out as a blog about my cross-dressing but it has developed a great deal since then. It is a place where I can be anonymous and honest, and I appreciate that.

It will deal with many things and new readers would do well to check out the New Readers' Page above this and the tag down there on the right. Although there's nothing too bad in here there will be adult language, so be careful. If you think this needs a greater control, please let me know. Thank you!

Sunday, 19 May 2013


That is probably true on one level but how
much of that truth is down to a sea-change
in how our culture perceives sex and all its
different forms and how much is down to a
timeless quality? Was Prehistoric sex kinky?
You will no doubt notice that this is published on the same date as another post, and the purpose is to bury it in RSS feed and to make sure that it does not headline on other blogs, at least, not for very long. I don't tend to like double-posting on an evening, but I feel that this is one of those topics that should remain... well, it's on here and people can read it but it should be very much a choice thing. I post my rantage and my words here for reasons that still elude me but that make me feel better about life in general but that doesn't necessarily mean anyone should be reading them!

To the warning! This post will be dealing with fetishes, fantasies and kinks - what they are, reactions to them and some musing on how these things are seen in popular culture, especially how our modern culture has become more porn-aware and how much readily available pornography has changed how people view and deal with sex and sexual attraction in the western world. If that is your bag, then by all means read on. If it isn't, don't. Did you see my post above about Eurovision? Go read that! You'll still make me feel all wibbly by your pageviews and that does me fine.

Since we started the whole having coitus thing again, we've managed three times, Tilly and I have discussed some things, albeit briefly and quickly, whilst in action and immediately afterward. I noted that, the second time, we were much more playful. We changed positions and we were rough and gentle in turn. She held me down and I held her down. She seemed to really like being held down, and I whispered that maybe she'd want to wear a collar too, she seemed less turned on or off and more completely confused, nonplussed, by the suggestion.

Look at these things. I had no idea that they even
existed as a thing before today. Most of the time
I assumed that cat ears on a headband were
pretty darn kinky, but these take it to a whole new
level of kink. /sarcasm
Since then I have stroked her face and she revealed that she felt like a cat. I laughed and said I could solve that with some ears and a collar with a bell on it. She discounted the collar and bell with a manner that suggested that it was so strange that why was I even bringing it up. Kind of how I imagine a conversation about dental hygiene that suddenly brought up stunt driving in monster-trucks would go. However, she seemed amused by the ears. This conversation was followed up the following morning, this morning, and again the ears were brought up. It seemed that we were sharing a silliness but the kind of silliness that would be acted upon. However, Tilly was most concerned about whether or not wearing ears would be considered 'kinky' or 'fetish'. I had never really thought of it as either, but I guess it could be. No, she insisted, did it mean that one 'loved cats' a little too much. I took her to be referring to furries. I assured her that this was not the case. We laughed some more and I threatened to buy her some ears. She laughed and dared me.

Downstairs I looked up some ears and found that there is a vast choice of them. I found some that weren't too pricey but still looked qualitative as a 'joke' present. I shared the knowledge with Tilly when she joined me downstairs and we were talking about dental hygiene and monster trucks again. Every time I try to bring up topics about playfulness, my term, in sexual relations or doing things beyond simple man-on-top-missionary then she says it's 'kinky' and doesn't really go further than that. It's almost as though some society based prudishness or definition of what sex ought to be is preventing her from considering... well, anything other than man-on-top-missionary. What more could anyone want?

Normal, standard and 'safe; positioning. However,
I learned in looking for this that the legs-together
aspect is, itself, considered a kink. Who knew.
And it got me thinking about two possible approaches to this: what if she were correct and the standard man-on-top-missionary is normal and all that our forefathers used for sex, both procreative and otherwise, and that all the rest is foisted on us by a culture that increasingly is over-sexualised and bases its norms and mores on pornography (see the apparent trend to have hairless muffs for example, which I find faintly... unrealistic)? The second approach is different: what if our perception of 'normal' is, in fact, coloured by generations of Victorian-inspired prudishness and patriarchy where a woman was expected to 'lie back and think of England' with no real expectation that a woman enjoy things? I mean, Tilly will permit oral on her and my use of hands to finish the job for her but will not do the same in return. She has made it abundantly clear in the past that oral for me is out of the question to the point where I dare not bring it up (I have no idea whether or not I would want to, if I'm honest, I have no frame of reference) and her tentative attempts at man-handling (heh) have been such that it's clear she has no investment in it. Quick clumsy grasp of me, fumbling, moves on swiftly.

Approach One
In this version my attempts to be 'more playful' are, in fact, the consequence of me reading sites such as fictionmania and magazines like the single copy of Forum I bought in Sixth Form. That is, at some point I started the slow road to conditioning my sexual response without a full appreciation of what was going on. By jacking off with toilet roll tied like ribbon on my wrists and neck or with string made handcuffs I was, in fact, perverting my normal desires. These things grew from the immersion in a culture that objectified sex with porn elements even if I was unaware.

So, this sort of rhyme, taught me by a friend when we were
both ten, is a bit... not normal.
The school I went to turns out to have been a bit of a rough one and so it is eminently possible that I was subjected to stimuli that were not 'normal' and, in fact, pornography based. In my form group, at the age of eleven, I saw a girl get tricked into handcuffs and heard sexualised banter about it. I heard conversations, and took part in some, about female on female oral sex between women who would later turn out bi or lesbian. I hung around with young boys who discussed sexual acts and tying up as being perfectly normal. I know now that these boys were reading pornography from about the age of eight. I suspect that these things were far from 'normal'.

Thus, at university, looking up 'spanking' and ABDL and TG stuff on the internet, still a very new thing for me, created a set of sexual mores and desires in me that was out of step with what is normal and acceptable. Add to that the generally more 'open' attitude to sex and pornography in society (using bondage to sell everything fro m razors to freshly prepared sandwiches; lesbians to promote child care and toothpaste; kinky boots to sell everything from cars to mayonnaise) and you have a recipe for creating unrealistic expectations of what goes on in the bedroom. Couple it with my mother's method of dealing with the collapse of her marriage to my father (sharing details of him asking to watch her and the next door neighbour having sex, the ownership of baby-doll night wear etc) and you have me. That is, my idea of safe and playful sex is actually very weird and strange, worthy of dismissal generally.

This would be the correct response to this kind of kink
then, and would handily explain and support the view
that Tilly has of such things. It's all a bit odd and
well, a bit distasteful, darling.
In this approach, Tilly is right to be completely confused as to why I would want anything else. Her rejection of her bisexual past as an aberration brings with it a natural disapproval of the pornification of society and advertising as being unattainable. Playfulness for her and for people in the past is changing who is on top and maybe discussing doggy-style without ever actually doing it because, hey, why would you need to? You might scratch a bit and bite but that is kinky and dangerous and out-there. In that sense we only know of one tribe who did the bitey sex thing before western culture came and shoved its phallus up their sphincter and that was a warlike tribe in Papua New Guinea who also drew blood when climaxing. As far as I can tell, most other tribes were polyamorous and otherwise vanilla.

In short, Tilly is right and I am in need of counselling and possible corrective therapy in order to enjoy sex 'normally' because, right now, it;s not doing it for me. I lied the other day about finishing the job, for example, and Tilly was taken in (thank goodness).

Approach Two
In this version the whole vanilla thing is actually a byproduct of a male dominated society in which the male's needs are the most important in sex. It makes a lot of sense. The woman, in the standard model, has her legs together to increase the tightness, the position on the floor/bed of lying down means that the vaginal canal is bent slightly, creating a natural spot to stimulate the head of the penis without actually allowing either party to properly stimulate the clitoris. As most women do not climax from vaginal stimulation but from clitoral stimulation it is reasonable to assume that men get the better deal and women are not expected to enjoy it. This can be combined with the 'usual' and socially acceptable fantasies of men holding women's wrists and being up against a wall. In all cases it is the man who gets the better deal and the woman who is subservient and powerless.

Male domination and the strange
de-agentification of women so that they
can play no part in their own rescue or
Even 'damsel in distress' situations are based upon a Victorian, principally pre-Raphelite, vision of medieval society and sexuality in which women are elevated to ethereal and weak creatures in need of a strong male dominating presence to 'rescue' them and take his reward. In all cases the agency lies with the man. This would be a perversion of sexual activity so that even 'women-led' sexual congress becomes more about the man than the woman. This makes a lot of sense with the 'woman on top' variation of missionary position or the use of oral stimulation. In these cases the man still gets the main deal of the act itself and everything else is relegated to foreplay or to cuddling afterwards - the emphasis is very much on the man's climax, either before or after, and that being the act itself. All of this does not strike me as being particularly natural.

In this male-centric and Victorian-sponsored model of sexual decency the permutations that are 'acceptable' are restricted and limited. Anything that does not conform to this social model would be repressed and strange and beyond the pale. The idea of introducing play items would be severely curtailed, allowed in some cases but by no means normal, or based on powerplay. The whole act of sex becomes another aspect of the master/servant relationship of middle-class industrialisation with any 'acceptable' perversions (note the word-choice) reinforcing male-dominance (yes, even femdom) and the act as a power transfer. Hence we have a focus on things like anal, bondage and role-reversal (that last one is very telling if you unpack it).

So, like this I expect. Except less tickling, at least, less
of the tickling that you could do at work.
Now why is it that work is so prudish? Where did that idea
come from that one could not work with someone with whom
one was having sexual relations? Given that this state of
affairs was the likely norm before industrialisation I can only
assume that it was something to do with the power-play
aspect of sexual behaviour.
In this version then, the idea of being 'playful' and pushing boundaries is more normal. What would be 'kinky' becomes more a reaction to an out-moded and unnecessarily controlled and contrived version of 'normal' in the bedroom than it is threatening or strange. I mean, sure, it remains very threatening as it would seek to upset the balance of roles in life and posit the very dangerous notion that women are people too and that people are equals in the bedroom. So, wearing kitty ears, playing with collars, experimenting with location etc would actually be considered tame and possibly normal. The real kinks would be to do it in baths or underwater and everything else, from shoving things in holes to top and tailing, would be pretty much normal sexual behaviour.

In this model I am not so much conditioned as unconditioned. In that I respond to my own desires that predate what I heard in the playground and that my boundaries have been created after the fact. My urges in the restriction of limbs and the reversal of roles in the bedroom are, in fact, natural (whatever that means) and no more kinks than clitoral stimulation is.

Either way, Tilly is unlikely to change to accommodate my sexual preferences simply because she does not understand why they would be. She would be unwilling, in either model, to accept that my feelings on the matter are anything other than 'strange' either because they are or because she is conditioned to believe that they are. Then there is the complicating factor that I do not come across as someone who would have non-normative sexual desires generally, my friends who tell me that I do not appear on their kink-dar or the fact that in conversation it is normally assumed, by anyone, that I am not only vanilla but totally unaware of more adventurous sexual practice - I am seen as 'innocent' by all and sundry. Tilly's reactions to my more worldy observations on sexual practice have always been suggestive of someone who has been shown a cute bunny shouting "shitcock" - that is, it is unexpected and a non-sequitor.


  1. Well, the fact that you ARE getting some is a good start, and I wouldn't rock the boat too much if I were you, at least not in the meantime.

    I think that the thing you would need to bring up at some point is "SEX IS SUPPOSED TO BE PLEASURALE!" .. for all the people involved. Trying different positions can (and will) increase her pleasure, and from that, the frequency in which you two can bump uglies.

    Doggie style is preferred by women usually because the stimulation is much more visceral and she doesn't have visual cues. Also, there is the balls hitting her thighs to give more body contact and the penetration can be deeper than in the missionary position. It is also easier for her to stimulate her clit while the penetration is happening, which she can control at her own speed.

    Kinks are often a way of dealing with things in our past that we'd often not think about otherwise. I know of a girl that was beat by her father, and liked being spanked sexually. She figured out that at some point it had been the easiest way to deal with it, and now she can own it in a way that is pleasurable to her.

    The main thing that has occurred in our modern society is that women have now spoken up for themselves that THEY deserve to enjoy sex too, and that it isn't JUST for procreation and it isn't JUST for HIS pleasure. It can be a bit emasculating for a man to hear that he isn't pleasurable to his female, and that is probably why the conservative movement tries to keep the "women shouldn't enjoy sex, but endure it" thought going.

    I think we'd be even further along sexually if it wasn't for the Victorian era. I mean, you hear all sorts of wondrous sexy things about Shakespeare's period in England .. and you figure that most people in Frontier America had 10-15 children in a 1-2 room hut. I can't imagine HOW you'd be able to keep that away from the children, and the truth is, they didn't.

    Hope this helps a bit, and I'm glad you two are at least having SOME form of intimacy between you, though it sounds like you still aren't quite happy as you should be. I'll be pulling for you!

    1. Oh you're right, Dee, making waves would not be a good idea right now. In many ways this post is just a whinge and a whine because things are going well. In fact, I think we can safely say that this is the sort of thing that spoiled never-happy people say!

      I believe that there is no way anything will change in the bedroom, so much of what I say here is academic.

      Historically speaking, yes, the whole 'behind closed doors' thing doesn't make an ounce of sense as there were so few doors. Then there's the family size thing that ballooned during industrialisation implying there had been much use of 'natural methods' like breastfeeding and the like beforehand (note that the former would have declined a little with industrialisation). No, our ancestors were at it in ways we would describe as 'kinky' for a very long time indeed!

      Thank you for stopping by and reading the post so carefully, it's always nice to hear from you!

      Joanna x


All comments are welcome, I have a thicker skin virtually than I do in real life!