0 comments/ 12876 views/ 0 favorites Sex and Power By: Cal Y. Pygia As human beings, we are free to assign purpose and value to ourselves, to others, and to our behavior. For this reason, people and conduct can have multiple meanings. Even behavior that has a biological origin and significance, such as the reproductive function, can have purposes and values beyond the merely biological or natural. Sex can be whatever men and women want it to be. For most, it is a source of fun and pleasure. For many, it is an expression of love. For some, it is a struggle for power or an acknowledgment of one's dominance or submissiveness. The metaphor "sex = power" is a dramatic gold mine, because it has built-in conflict, which is the basis for narrative fiction of all kinds. Such conflict can give rise, as it were, to, and help to sustain, such plots as a character's acquisition of power, loss of power, maintenance of the dominant position, self-discovery of his or her sadistic or masochistic (or, more generally, aggressive or acquiescent) nature, the emotional effects of assuming a position of power or powerlessness, and many others, as a writer treats of all the implications of strength and weakness, power and impotence, authority and subjection. Certain sexual behaviors express power, just as their opposites express powerlessness. Simply by depicting characters as performing these activities, a writer can show them to be dominant or submissive. Then, he or she can include exposition or dialogue that reinforces and interprets the meanings of the characters' behavior along thematic lines, enriching the story and giving it a psychological as well as a narrative dimension. Although some may have other ideas as to which behaviors represent dominant and aggressive actions and which signify submissive and docile or passive actions, it may be argued that the following behaviors are dominant and aggressive and that, as such, they offer a shorthand way of depicting a character who wields the power in a gay relationship. (The same is generally true with regard to heterosexual relationships, if the pronouns are changed to reflect different genders.) Fondling another man, especially in public Exposing another man's nakedness Exhibiting an erection to another man Verbally humiliating another man Making another man ask permission to do simple, ordinary deeds Stepping on another man Having one's feet licked by another man Making another man undress himself Undressing another man Binding, blindfolding, and/or gagging another man Masturbating another man Spanking another man Riding upon another man, as if he were a pony Being fellated by another man Ejaculating in another man's face Administering an enema to another man Penetrating another man anally with a dildo or one's penis Ejaculating inside another man's rectum or on his buttocks Being rimmed by another man Urinating on another man Making another man drink one's urine Defecating on another man Fisting another man Feminizing another man Tattooing another man or having him tattooed with one's name Exhibiting another man as one's property Sharing another man with a third man or letting a third man borrow him Photographing another man in "compromising" situation or position Making a man do menial chores or "women's work" The opposite behaviors may be understood to represent powerlessness in the gay relationship: Being fondled by another man, especially in public Having one's nakedness exposed by another man Observing another man's exposure of his erection Being verbally humiliated by another man Being made to ask permission to do simple, ordinary deeds Being stepped by another man Licking another man's feet Being made to undress by another man Being undressed by another man Being bound, blindfolded, and/or gagged by another man Being masturbated by another man Being spanked by another man Being ridden upon by another man, as if one were a pony Fellating another man Having another man ejaculate in one's face Receiving an enema by another man Being penetrated by another man anally, with a dildo or his penis Having another man ejaculate inside one's rectum or on one's buttocks Rimming another man Being urinated on by another man Drinking another man's urine Being defecated upon by another man Being fisted by another man Being feminized by another man Being tattooing by another man or having oneself tattooed with his name Being exhibited as another man's property Being shared or borrowed by a third man Being photographed in "compromising" situation or position by another man Being made to do menial chores or "women's work" by another man In addition, these behaviors may also suggest submissiveness and powerlessness: Exhibiting one's buttocks or anus Flirting with another man As these lists reveal, the powerful, authoritative, aggressive, dominant man acts, whereas, for the most part, the weak, wimpy, conciliatory, submissive man is acted upon. However, it is not enough simply to depict characters as performing such actions (or as having them performed upon them). The writer should reinforce and enrich his or her depiction of such conduct with interpretations and characterizations as to the meaning of such actions or receipt of such actions, for actions do not speak for themselves any more than do facts. To mean something, their meanings must be assigned, through direct exposition, dialogue, or by sharing with the reader the character's thoughts and feelings about the actions or the effects of being acted upon. As an example of how a story can take on added enrichment in characterization and theme when a writer "psychoanalyzes" the effect of behavior on its recipient (the submissive partner), here is an excerpt from the final installment, "First Timer: The Aftermath," of a series (available on Literotica): * * * * * Gary had taken his clothes off in front of another man. He'd allowed another man to spank him with his hand, to paddle him, and to beat his ass with two belts. He'd let another man turn his ass from pink to red to purple. He'd drunk another man's piss. He'd sucked another man's cock and swallowed his ejaculate. He'd allowed himself to be reduced to tears, humiliated beyond belief, and physically and emotionally abused. Why? What had possessed him to acquiesce to such maltreatment? More importantly, what was the matter with him that he'd permitted such mistreatment to begin with? Where was his self-respect, his self-esteem? No man who cared about himself would do the things he'd done. Why had Gary? He was submissive--but what did that mean? He liked to please. He hated to say no. He wanted to be popular. All his life, he'd wanted others to like and to accept him. He was acquiescent, compliant, obedient--in a word, submissive. Although these words defined him perfectly, Gary had long pretended otherwise, claiming that he was rebellious, insubordinate, resistant, and, if not dominant, assertive. His behavior today, in this motel room, with Russ, showed which of these two versions of himself was true. Gary was a wimp. He'd done everything that Russ had ordered him to do. He'd proven himself to be Russ' servant, Russ' slut, Russ' bitch. Although he'd tried to reject it, the truth was, as he'd found out, that he was a dependent personality, unable to think or feel or judge for himself. His sense of self, like his sense of self-worth, depended upon other people--people who were only too happy to use him for their own purposes and pleasures, as Russ had done and would continue to do, if Gary allowed it, which, of course, was so likely as to be a foregone conclusion. . . . He was submissive--but what did that mean? He liked to please. He hated to say no. He wanted to be popular. All his life, he'd wanted others to like and to accept him. He was acquiescent, compliant, obedient--in a word, submissive. Although these words defined him perfectly, Gary had long pretended otherwise, claiming that he was rebellious, insubordinate, resistant, and, if not dominant, assertive. His behavior today, in this motel room, with Russ, showed which of these two versions of himself was true. Gary was a wimp. He'd done everything that Russ had ordered him to do. He'd proven himself to be Russ' servant, Russ' slut, Russ' bitch. Although he'd tried to reject it, the truth was, as he'd found out, that he was a dependent personality, unable to think or feel or judge for himself. His sense of self, like his sense of self-worth, depended upon other people--people who were only too happy to use him for their own purposes and pleasures, as Russ had done and would continue to do, if Gary allowed it, which, of course, was so likely as to be a foregone conclusion. . . . * * * * * Because the author takes the time to explain and to interpret the meaning of the abuses that the character, Gary, has suffered at the hands of his dominant partner, Russ, these actions have meaning, as does Gary's life. Had the author not told the reader how Gary thought of and felt about having been abused, his abuse would have no meaning to him--or to the reader. Because the writer did take the time to explain the significance of Gary's abuse at Russ' hands, however, both the abuse and Gary's life as its victim have meaning and value, and the story--in fact, the entire series of stories, of which "First Timer: The Aftermath," is the conclusion, has a theme (a lesson): being the victim of abuse makes the passive, abused character's life meaningful and significant because it empowers the dominant partner as the victimizer, without whom the submissive character would be nothing and no one.