Sunday, 28 November 2010

I'm not a brat (in THAT way)

Everyone who knows me knows how much I love to play. That being the case, you would think that I would often deliberately 'brat' in order to receive further punishment. That is not the case with me in serious play. When I am in role in a scene, I will never act up in order to be punished further, in fact the complete opposite is true.When threatened with something for certain misbehaviour or disobedience,I will do my best to obey, to in fact, AVOID PUNISHMENT. Most of the time when in a scene I will be as obedient as I can be. Occasionally,that is how I feel like being, I may be fiesty,but this is just natural behaviour on my part, not me being a brat. I have a tendency to suffer from 'verbal diarrhoea,' cases of my 'engaging my mouth before my brain is in gear.' I always know that if I feel in need of further thrashing,then I can ask for it WHEN THE SCENE IS OVER.I can usually find someone willing to oblige........

1 comment:

  1. This whole "brat" as a verb thing in the spankoverse is really quite odd to me. It has no obvious counterpart in the D/s realm -- the closest would be "topping from the bottom", but even that is qualitatively different, especially for those instances where the recipient of the attention happens to be the dominant one in the dynamic!

    I think part of the oddity we both find with this "bratting" stuff is that for the concept to have any meaning there has to be roles; without an authority figure, the sort of behavior associated with brats is just obnoxious. And in a mostly egalitarian society, there are not really any "natural" authority figures -- everything comes from a role. So given there are roles, most people associate a particular type of behavior with the roles and consider that behavior "natural". Bratting, in almost all cases, is at odds with that natural pattern, and I think it jars on many people's sensitivities.

    All that somewhat long-winded verbiage is not to say that every recipient accepts her (or his, but for me it would be her) treatment meekly or stoically, but that there are ways that "fit" naturally to the roles: the "dumb insolence" and "answering back" from a girl who thinks her punishment unjustified or unfair, and various forms of mischief that might amuse her more than, say, the disciplinarian. But they (almost always) seem to fit within whatever role may be in play (even if the role is unformed and vague).

    Perhaps an example or two may make my ramblings clearer: in there is a "school" vibe, no way would the students be tying the teacher's shoelaces together, but they may tie those of a contemporary. In a judicial situation, no way would the prisoner say anything should she find the punishment easy to take. But in both situations there are ways to prolong the attention: a schoolgirl *might* announce that her punishment didn't hurt, and a convict *might* insult an officer of the court (or the whole court, come to that).

    Anyway, to me (at least) your description makes sense and is consistent with the sort of roles we play. Plus, and rather important to me: there is always a risk, even if it's very small, of tops getting carried away and invested in their own roles. This can get not-quite-consensual, and generally be unwise.

    [ This could set me off on a related but different rant, on the subject of pushing consent beyond appropriate boundaries during certain types of role play, a phenomenon that seems to be aggravated by some types of roles. ]

    Gosh, I'm not sure whether any of that has a great deal to do with your entry, but it certainly started me thinking...

    ReplyDelete