Wednesday, 20 November 2013

Female Orgasm Denial – Queries, Solutions and Sources



A contributor going by the Monika of ‘IMA AMAZIN’ (I’m loving it!  Anything rather than the hackneyed ‘ANONYMOUS’ as far as I’m concerned!) recently left a new comment on the post "Curbing Masturbation and Domestic Discipline.

He (or she?) says: "I'm very interested also in controlling female masturbation. Especially if she has been highly aroused or stimulated prior to denying the release. I know this thread is quite old but if anyone can give me some information on it I would appreciate it.”

Well, it WAS quite a long time back, Friday, 11 December 2009 to be precise, and was based on a scanned extract from the Reader’s Letters pages of Blushes C.P Special Edition (I don’t know the volume or edition number I’m afraid).  See it here (click to visit).  So I thought it prudent to reproduce his (or her) comment here.

For all those interested in this fascinating subject I would recommend - in addition to a visit to the specialist blog, The Female Orgasm Denial’ (click on blog title or check out my ‘Blog List’ in the right hand sidebar) -  you could also try the Tumblr blog, ‘Female Denial and Dominance’ (link in sidebar listed under ‘Tumblr Blogs’ – obviously!) or ‘Tantalism.org’ (another site dealing with female orgasm denial by various means – listed in the sidebar under ‘Useful Resources’).  And then there are the various sources regarding chastity belts and other related approaches – they are often worth mining also, and there are lots of links scattered throughout the sidebar.  And whoever and wherever you visit, please be sure to mention yours truly and the resources on this blog and the associated ‘Institute’ website wherever possible.

Of course nothing cripples the likelihood of achieving orgasm like psychological pressure and associated psychological issues.  That much is known.  And a suitably repressed, inhibited individual does not need constant supervision and inspection, nor mechanical devices to physically defeat the possibility of ‘the solitary vice’. 

But where in the literature has the approach of purposely engineered psychological pressure applied so as to deliberately induce inhibiting and repressing psychological issues in the hapless subject been depicted?  Hmm?  Let me see now…. I seem to recall touching upon it within the pages of ‘ALICE UNDER DISCIPLINE’ – correct me if I’m wrong!  But I return to it within the new book I have been working on too – provisionally titled at this moment in time as ‘Miss Swanley and her Janice’ – and this time around involving a male protagonist; just to show I’m not misogynistic!  

Nice pic, by the way, I'm sure you'll agree.  But what a shame about all those Tattoos!  Or is it just me?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I agree with you about the tats. Mostly, they just look skanky. I don't often see anyone with tats that really look good on them.

I loved the orgasm denial stuff in your books. And I liked the fact that mostly, it was done without devices, although that cap thingie that they put on Lavinia haunted my dreams for a long time. But I loved how in the Institute they knew how to take control over a girl's sexuality, and use it against her.

The Non Victorian Chick

Toyntanen said...

Great to hear from you again, Non Victorian Chick!
 
I kind of guessed and supposed you would sport some ‘ink’ someplace – tasteful and stylish of course!  Goes without saying!
 
But you’d be surprised how many guys don’t like ‘em on gals, especially in spanking photosets, wherein a tattoo can often be quite frankly incongruous – I’m thinking here of the adult schoolgirl type of thing; tattoos and school uniforms just do not go together in my view.  I am surprised how many ‘glamour’ models go and get one done as I am clearly not the only one who thinks like this, as witnessed by the number of web sites that proudly announce “all our girls are tattoo-free” or something similar; those website owners must clearly know about the problem then!
 
Saying all that, there is something to be said for tattoos carried out for punitive and similar reasons – but mainstream Hollywood has been there, done that, now so ‘nuff said!     
 
Yeah, the over-use of all sorts of mechanical / technological shenanigans is what so often turns me off about a lot of the ‘orgasm denial’ / ‘masturbation control’ stuff in the literature to be found out there.  No one – apart from yours truly – ever seems to have visited the possibilities behind induced repressive feeling of guilt or whatever being put to use in a deliberate attempt to take control and shackle an individual’s sexuality.  Sew the seed of doubt, and with a little help anxiety alone will do the rest.  The trick here is not so much how to control or curtail masturbation as to actually allow – even encourage - it to take on the magnitude of an obsessive act, a fixation if you will, but always with anxiety in the background rising in concert with increased arousal and building to a crescendo of self doubt and guilt as the release (and relief) of climax nears.
 
 As much as I say I dislike the use of physical devices – far too easy – I think I can make the case for one or two exceptions. For example the device I invoke in the book - a wire-reinforced rubber thimble-like hood surgically sutured into place over the clitoris with tiny platinum wire hoops or stitches around its base to hold it in place, for those that haven't read it – I based on an actual Victorian period intervention designed to 'discourage the development of the solitary vice'. No kidding. The original consisted of a thimble-shaped open-wire basket weave construction of silver wire sutured in place pretty much as I describe in the text. The only embellishment I have made is to describe an inner silicon rubber lining residing within the rigid wire cage which bristles internally with a radiating all-round array of fine thread-like rubber projections of a consistency or texture I would imagine as being closer to hairs rather than bristles, the idea being that with the movement of the subject's body... Well you get the idea!

But I defend the idea as being as basic as to have been available to those devious Victorians, with nary an electrode nor computer in sight. And who knows? Such a device could have been fabricated with a little thought once natural rubber became available or gutta percha. Perhaps, somewhere it was... Discuss...

Anonymous said...

You mean that had a basis in actual fact?! Whoa. Well, knowing you, I should have figured.

"shackle an individual's sexuality". I like that phrase. Because a lot of the control was psychologically based, and because the device was small and very simple, it came across as being more credible. It seemed like something that could actually be worn long term. A lot of the devices you read about would have a lot of hygienic and medical issues.

And I just loved how Lavinia was left to want, and need, and obsess, and simmer. It was hot, cruel, elegant, and insidious.

The Non Victorian Chick

Toyntanen said...

Oh yes indeedy, Non Victorian Chick! Very much based in fact! Although, if you ignore those many interventions based on variants of the chastity belt or on the bedtime application of 'finger splints', to prevent manual tampering, when it comes to mechanical means of combating female onanism (hope I have spelled that correctly) the details are somewhat hard to come by. Certainly, two hours of searching the 'web' this morning failed to turn up the original source, although I came across plenty more of interest on the subject, and I know I have the original material on the computer some place (or on one of my back-up drives). I spend a lot of time perusing antique fairs and the like looking for interesting pamphlets, papers, periodicals, catalogues and so on from the period (and through into the 1960s, at which point my interest tends to wane) and so it is quite possible it was part of something I scanned in myself – though saying that, I'd have thought I'd have uploaded it to one or more web sites if not the blog. Possibly I did upload it, but to one of the Yahoo groups (they tend to evaporate like morning mist) or one of the old news groups; as soon as I locate it I'll upload it to the blog or publish a link.
Most device-based interventions against the 'solitary vice' from the Victorian era are aimed squarely at the male. For example one method of treatment - infibulation - consisted of first drawing the foreskin forward over the glans before a needle was employed to pass a silver wire through from one side to the other and the wire ends were twisted together making it impossible for the lad to achieve an erection, intentionally or otherwise. There were also all manner of lockable tubular cages (as there are still, available to the fetish market – but remember we are talking main-stream respectability here), some internally spiked (explored further within the pages of my new book – out soon) and even a rudimentary electro-shock system that became available just after the turn of the century. But when it came to dealing with the female most approaches were more... lets say... radical. Even the least barbaric seems to have come down to encouraging scar tissue to numb the offending nub of the problem by the repeated application of carbolic – like in the soap, only much, much harsher.

Toyntanen said...

...CONTINUED...

But there were those who were more 'enlightened', thus the arrival on the scene of an infibulation technique aimed at the female, one form being the aforementioned 'clitoris cage' (I have also come across the description of a solid silver variant, “... this being of an appearance akin to the sewing thimble any good wife or seamstress would keep, but possessed of a flaring skirt or flange around the base, the latter being pierced at regular intervals around the circumference so as to accommodate that means of anchorage, whether it be by continuous silver wire suturing or individual crimped loops or rings, such as the learned physician might, in his wisdom, deem most efficacious”). I LOVE the Victorians – never use one word when half a dozen will do. And I think I may have abridged or otherwise interpreted that quote; I seem to remember the original being all but unintelligible to the modern eye.

But there were simpler measures available to the Victorian disciplinarian (although they saw it as a health issue rather than an overtly disciplinary one) that didn't require a trip to the surgery. The little deviant might be made to sleep in an all-in-one sheepskin jacket and trousers combination (a sort of Victorian 'onesie') with her wrists fastened to its collar, her feet to the foot of the bed and a strap about her waist fastened to the mattress. Alternatively there were available horse hair drawers, designed to be worn at night, more as a punitive measure than as a preventative. These were actually made of canvas, but were lined with horsehair and were designed to fit closely around the groin and upper thighs. The drawstring securing the waist, once tightened, would be safeguarded against tampering by having sealing wax dripped on the knot. A more modern variant – modern being 1930s – 1950s mental hospital apparel – was the basis of the type of thing I describe in one of my earlier books, a tough short-legged bloomer-style garment with a spring steel hoop threaded through the deep-section rubber-lined waistband, designed to encircle the waist and be lockable by means of a small padlock. One can't help but wonder if somewhere, at sometime, someone didn't think of combining the two, perhaps that Victorian sheepskin 'onesie' thing - a nice thick leather collar at its neck and cuffs at the wrists sporting metal D-rings and perhaps similar attachments at the leg cuffs at the ankles - exceedingly close-fitting at the crotch, whereat the gusset might be lined with a strip of horse hair or coarse velvet, and with similarly lined horse hair or velvet pads positioned over the breast area.

Toyntanen said...

Sorry, I had to post the above comment in two parts as it ran above the word count allowance.

And now I've just noticed the video I posted last time has been block, so I guess I'll have to go back and remove it (unless access to it is just blocked locally - I'm in a coffee bar, connected to their WIFI). But rest assured it - and others like it - will still be available on the website, as part of THE INSTITUTE section in an area devoted to straightjackets: I'll keep y'all posted!

Anonymous said...

In the 1970s when my mother caught me masturbating as well as being caned I was subject to restraints to prevent my fondling. We were a very religious Catholic family and my beahviour was seen as sinful. I was 19 at the time but I was made to wear a school uniform to make me less attractive. In addition I was confined to wearing heavy gussetted school knickers 24 hours a day and at nights had my hands confined to mitts tied at the wrist. I also had to wear a thick long starched nightgown to further prevent my masturbation attempts. I was of course grounded and had to attend extra confession and Bible glass to condone for my sin. It was awful but effective. Susan