Throughout human history men have been in thrall to their phallus. A common formulation used by proponents of male orgasm regulation. Quite neatly it removes writing, politics, scholarship, art, finance, music, craftsmanship produced and practiced by men throughout the centuries.
This is certainly the sociohistorical premise of Tanya Larisse who has produced a sort of Cartoon Guide to Male Chastity. (She precedes her name with “Dr.” but I could just as easily claim a Sc.D or LLD.)
She pushes the commonplace line that without the frustration of being denied to orgasm the human male becomes less kind, generous and supportive. That a woman once given the erotic omnipotence of being the keyholder of his chastity belt will cause the husband or boyfriend to blossom in virtue, courtesy and become the man she wished she’d married.
I always wonder: if he’s so unworthy and unsupportive why marry or date him? Why not divorce or leave him?
It isn’t as if locking his penis in a chastity device is a real lifetime guarantee. Should the man grow tired of having his cock imprisoned he can always find wire cutters and refuse to ever wear one again.
I think that consensual orgasm denial can be lots of fun. But when presented as a shortcut to human decency it is distasteful.
Originally posted 2007-08-27 14:02:58.
Yes! There is a logic and sense in what you write.
Thank you.
I also believe that women make men better people, and really a chastity device is a novelty or symbolic treat of what a man’s surrender “should” be. Maybe a symbolic option for couples with fidelty issues too?
Does that make sense?
I have always maintained that if you need $180 of plastic hanging from your genitals to make you a better partner, then you’ve got much bigger issues than can be fixed with a chastity device.
It’s not a matter of needing; it’s a matter of wanting.