Good GOD

I have a ridiculous comment-backlog to catch up on. It's been the week of much commenting. Good thing I'm feeling decidedly boring today, as it gives me the time to just sit back, relax and argue with people. Woo.

I'm nearly done my JLA challenge stuff and it's... different from my usual fare. Two words: erotic asphyxiation. Also puppies, but that's a third word and it just screws up the balance of that sentence, you know? I would like to point out at this juncture that no, the puppies don't die, liviapenn. tstar78 has approved the drabble idea, so there.

My Gilesfic is stalled. I don't know why. I think I'm just intimidated by writing Giles during canon. The first part of the story is pre-Bufffy and focuses on his childhood and early adulthood. Writing Giles-Giles, Joss-Giles, though, is... terrifying. I'm not sure I'll be able to get the dialogue right and considering that the story focuses on my two favourite Jossverse characters, Giles and Buffy, I'm worried that I'll screw up their interaction irredeemably. It's hard to explain exactly why it's a concern in this case, if you haven't been one of the unlucky bastards audiencing for me. *waves at faith_accompli, tstar78 and rageprufrock. Soon lasultrix will be at my mercy as well. Mwa ha ha! If any of you feel like volunteering for torture by MHC fic, I'd be grateful. Not like, grateful enough to actually do anything for you, but grateful. And stuff.

I haven't had time to work on celli's birthday fic *shame*, but I have found some time for betaing lavenderoracle's fic.

It's all coming, I swear. ^_-

Um. Other than that I'm kind of bored.

Entertain me? *pokes*

Sex and Trust

Recently someone told me that in general, trust is not a factor in sex and that in particular, it wasn't necessary in a BDSM situation. This is dangerously and bizarrely fallacious, not to mention fantastical. It doesn't bear up to real life examples, any sex studies I've read or even common sense.

sex = physical intimacy = physical vulnerability

Surely you won't quibble with that. Now, being that sexual acts require physical vulnerability, wouldn't an untrusting person avoid them altogether? After all, that kind of extreme risk isn't really worth it just to feel good for a few seconds, minutes if you're lucky and then be left exactly as you were before. A profoundly untrusting person would rely on his own hand.

Every consensual sexual act (excluding masturbation) requires trust, if only enough to be sure that your partner will not kill you during the act, or otherwise endanger you. The dirtiest bar crawler is making a sublime leap of faith when she goes home with a strange man, accepting that he won't give her a disease or assault her. The most hardcore domme has to trust that her sub really is a sub and isn't going to suddenly decide she doesn't want to be there and fuck up the game.

Sex is necessarily always an act of trust, even when that trust isn't consciously imparted.

In a BDSM situation, trust is even more important. A sub has to trust that his master won't get out of control, knows what she's doing and can understand his needs. A domme has to trust that her sub knows how to take care of himself, in that he needs to know when to use his safewords. BDSM is an exchange of trust and truly screwed up people don't get far in consensual relationships and games.

Sex is so romanticized partly because trust is so essential to it, and it's easier to trust someone noble or loving. Abuses of trust in sexual situations - cheating, pushing someone too far - are near-universally reviled, though each culture has its own spin on it. Many of our romanticized notions of sex were developed as a kind of protection. If chivalry has convinced you that you can't sleep around and you have to treat the ladies decently, then you're less likely to give them syphilis and treat them roughly, you know?

We also see a push towards anti-romanticism, the sex-means-nothing camp. Interestingly, outsiders and insiders usually perceive this as a deviation from the norm. The norm where people realize that sex is about trust. Ahem. Stripping sex of its romanticization and intimacy is an act of rebellion. Such people are usually called by derogatory terms.

Even for those who possess a kink for unsafe sex, the act is still implicitly about trust, because in this case, it is about the lack of trust present in the situation. [The exception proves the theory. <-- adoramouse won't let me hold onto my poor grammar. Pretend this sentence doesn't exist. *sniffle*]

In all consensual situations, trust plays an essential role in sex. It is only in non-consensual situations where power is more important than trust. Non-consensual sex is typically about exercising power over another human, while consensual D/S is a game, an exchange of trust and power.

Non-consensual sex should not be confused with kink in general or BDSM in particular. A dom is not a rapist and a sub is not a victim and any attempts to draw correlations between these two very different kinds of people (and urges) is frankly ridiculous. It’s like saying that anyone who doesn’t fuck the way you do is an immoral, criminal deviant.

And just to make sure that no one misunderstands this post: minimal trust is required in every consensual sexual act. Trust is implicit to sex. Trust is always a factor.

Thank you, drive through.