The Wicked Wednesday prompt “Pleasing” made me think. It made me think about my Mistress, and how important it is for my enjoyment of a session to know that she has been pleased by me and by my actions and reactions during our time together.
I often describe myself as “not very submissive” and I do feel that my sessions are driven more by my response to the sensations the Mistress is making me experience, be they painful or pleasurable, than by the act of submitting to her. Yet a strong motivator, a strong determinant of the course of the session once I am lost in it, is the desire to please her. This shows most in the fact that, if I sense she is enjoying the session and taking something from it, I will push my masochism, push my acceptance of her pain, beyond my normal boundaries and relish her enjoyment of my suffering. If that is submission, then I am a submissive.
Six months ago I saw Mistress Darcy, a very experienced and rather famous Mistress based in New York. Quite early in our session she said something that seemed so strange, I have thought about it often since. She said: “You’re just a little boy.” Just A Little Boy. At one level it’s palpable nonsense. I am a 6’2″ BIG man. Even at the psychological level, I instinctively rebel against her “little boy” perception; I’ve run businesses, served in the military, played rugby. I’m a full-on, kick-arse, alpha male.
I’m not sure I am. These characteristics are clothes I wear in order to get through the day, but are they really me?
Thinking about her ‘little boy’ statement, I revisited something I had read about long ago. Transactional Analysis, a theory originally from the fifties but still in use in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy today, analyses human communications as transactions between three ego states labelled “Adult,” “Parent,” and “Child.” We use all three states at different times, but some of us more naturally occupy one over the others. There’s a brief article on the theory here.
“Child” behaviours are those learnt from childhood and I suspect that they form a larger part of my make up than would be immediately apparent if you met me in a business setting. “Child” behaviours can be co-operative or spontaneous, which are seen as positive traits, or resistant and immature which are seen as negative traits. The strong child in my character may well be the origin of the creativity I show in my business dealings, but so too might my tendency to be sulky when things don’t go my way.
I think that, in the language of transactional analysis, a session with a Mistress may be a chance for me to indulge my strong inner “child” in an environment where the reaction to “child” type behaviours will be entirely positive. The acquiescent “Yes, Mummy” of childhood becomes the acquiescent “Yes, Mistress” of the dungeon, as my inner “child” becomes all obedience and compliance, surrendering to someone exhibiting a strong “parent” ego state. Not having to be the “parent” or “adult” for a few hours, becomes a release for me. Instead my “child” is able to focus on pleasing the Mistress’s “parent” in our emotional transaction.
So perhaps Mistress Darcy in New York, with her “just a little boy” comment, had recognized my strong “child” ego state and was responding to it.
And what could more clearly accentuate that “child” state than being punished?
More, though perhaps less introspective, wickedness here: