Art in CM: locked penis images & freedom

A caged cock has the freedom of focusing on things in life other than the pursuit of sex and orgasm.

 

Except that probably 98% of the gallery images are posted by the wearers of the devices, not their KH's. So you should instead look for inspiration in sources such as Warhol, who celebrated the everyday as art. Certainly the repetition you see by examining photo after photo of locked penises is reminiscent of Warhol's obsession with silkscreening an image multiple times. The penis in the cage becomes a utilitarian object elevated to 'art' simply because the artist makes it so.

 

As a consideration

Is the mind of the bearer of a locked cock free to focus on the pursuit of sex erections and orgasms without the distraction of having any getting in the way and thereby prolonging the pursuit

 

How many people would consider the modal pictures of a penis or a penis in a cage or an empty cage as being art? I don't or at least I have not yet seen a picture of that type that I would consider to be art.

I have pictures like that of my own the majority of which show the cage alone or in use in a bid to inform those that do not have that type of cage rather than titilate the senses or imagination of the viewer. I do not have pictures of my penis uncaged as we all know what a PA is what a circumcised penis looks like and there would in my opinion nothing to be served by having in my CM albums such an otherwise unremarkable photograph.

I have seen some cages which are works of art in themselves ( not always practical I might add) so a picure of one of those occupied or not might be construed as art by some. I think of such photos as depictions of pieces of art or examples of art rather than the photos themselves being a work of art in their own right.


There are many definitions of or reponses to the questiom '' What is Art?'' some by well known historical figures but I suppose it all comes down to one's own perception .....what you consider to be art is art... but don't expect everyone to agree.

Arguably one of the purposes of Art is to encourage discussion.

 

Or if indeed he needs to consider anything at all outside of his relationship and its dynamic that he would not have considered or in any more depth had he not been locked and denied.

 

Probably if he was already bent that way. I’m a strict conservative, hard-working, boot strap kinda guy and I accept no less from those around me. No amount of chastity could turn me into a SJW, community activist or other rabble rouser. I got mine, let others get theirs or do without.

 

I'm glad you mentioned Duchamp; that's exactly what I was thinking of (Fountain, to be precise).

I would not make that assumption; having never worn a cage yourself, you may be underestimating the almost obsessive drive many males have to display their penis, especially when locked. While some undoubtedly do as a directive of their KH, I would have to say that the overwhelming majority show off for self-arousal/sexual humiliation.

 

Oh, absolutely. It is self-expression by 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 of the desire for freedom. The caged penis as art might find similarities in the work of Leni Riefenstahl or Soviet propaganda posters. The act of struggle becomes the art, which of course has roots that can be traced back to Hegel, Nietzsche, et al.

Naturally, some guy locking up his junk and posting a photo of it here is probably not aware of all this, but these references serve only to explain, not direct, the actions.

 

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.

 

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.

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).

 

This is a really interesting thread, thanks for starting something that for me is completely original. I don’t have any experience of the deeper elements of art and it’s philosophical use, though I have studied semiotics and it’s impact on the use of symbology in art.

For me the vast majority of caged penis images are anything but art, though I accept art can use anything. From my studies in photography I have a great deal of enjoyment looking at the work of Martin Parr and his exploration of the mundane, ridiculous and every day. Although I’m not sure what he would do with a caged penis I would have loved to see Robert Maplethorpe get hold of male chastity as a subject.

I find images that include a female participant far more arousing than one that has obviously been taken by the male alone. In addition obvious porn is obvious. Overtly pornographic images do absolutely nothing. Something that looks real, an image taken by a real couple has a far greater impact. I think this is because it confirms what and my Wife are doing is happening elsewhere.

Thinking of Deschamp I find it mildly amusing that I haven’t used a urinal for its intended purposes for three years, since using one whilst locked up is utterly impossible. For me urinals really have taken on a different status!

 

(The following is all "in my opinion")

The litmus test would be a bad experience related to the kink, for example being in an abusive relationship with somebody who fits their preferred erotic category.

The "mere" fetishist would (hypothetically) move on to different turn ons and the fetish would fade. It was only a reinforced masturbation fantasy anyway.

The mildly kinky person would still feel the tug of their kink, but would associate it with bad experiences and go think about something else: they have other ways to be their authentic self, and other turn ons.

In those cases, Trivers may be proven right if they had previously identified as deeply kinky in order to experience their kink or fetish.

Then there are, hose at my end of the spectrum who are deeply kinky. Abusive relationships are particularly damaging for us because the abuse hits the same mental buttons - it's a deep violation of self. Even so, once we have our heads together, we still seek out our kink. So Trivers does not apply here.

I hope that answers your question...

 

But then you'd have to define art to exclude images of non-consensual acts! If there is freedom in the chastity images, it's freedom from the masculine burden. However, I suspect the thrill you experience is something darker and more primal.

 

OK so how does my answer apply to Zizek etc?