I'm sure many people have opinions about it--just a note: if I'm out of line in bringing this up because it exists as some sort of unspeakable taboo let me know, I'd prefer not to offend anyone-- but I digress.
Skipping the unneeded--inaccurate--Freudian analysis of how my mother may have held me to long or my father didn't support my baseball team; bondage in general is most definitely the objectification of oneself. Although it has strong sexual overtones: by making oneself an object, the complexity of human sexuality is reduced simply to pleasure. It is also accurate to say that this happens often. If not in terms of sexuality, then there is still a primordial need to reduce oneself to basic instincts: this is why in vacationing people fly thousands of miles to hike along the beach and lay in the sun. There is something deep within the lobes of our cognizance which requires our escape from an immense reality. This, bondage accomplishes quite nicely.
I begin this way because I've read some of the posts and have been taken aback by the assumption of perversity. Bondage is perverse simply if your a Catholic, and even then biblical literature contains instances of "bondage." If sexuality is not perverse, and escapism is similarly not so, then why is bondage considered to be such taboo.
Perhaps it is the humiliation which the bottom 'assumeadly' experiences that causes the assumption of perversity, "surely one who is willing to be humiliated is perverse," but it seems to be quite simply, a mindset. If it was truly humiliating and truly torturous there would be no pleasure to be gained from any masochistic activity.
So, bondage...masochism, seems to be simply ones objectification, escape, vacation. And self bondage is of course all of this except perpetrated by oneself, upon oneself: the ultimate switch. One begins as the sadist, devising the 'torture,' the 'humiliation,' the restraints; and whence upon one is locked in the position of...submissiance, by their own accord they become the masochist. The ultimate power exchange, one is the creator or their own torment, which is so poetically aberrant--being in control by being controlled.
Its reasonable to assume that if one must relinquish their control of their sexuality to satisfy a primal urge to vacate ones normal senses, then conversely one must also take control of their sexuality to remain actualized. In self bondage, as was aforementioned, a single person is all of 'judge, jury and executioner,' of the delicacy of their sexuality. In bondage proper, the top controls themselves not only by objectification of the bottom but also by the ability to control in a situation of vulnerability.
I say this obviously that sexuality is vulnerability itself, and this perhaps I say this in an ideology of old-fashionedness, but how many people are willing to submit themselves to someone they don't know intimately--not only sexually.
I'd certainly like to know others views on this.
And if I'm out of line, step on my balls, I'd definitely enjoy it
